Slayton, Deborah v. Colvin, Carolyn

Filing 32

Transmission of Notice of Appeal, Docketing Statement, Order, Judgment and Docket Sheet to Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals re 28 Notice of Appeal. (Attachments: # 1 Docketing Statement, # 2 Order #26, # 3 Judgment #27, # 4 Docket Sheet) (nln)

CASE NO. 15-_____

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
DEBRA SLAYTON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.

Case No.:

CAROLYN COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

14-cv-117-bbc

Hon. Barbara B. Crabb
United States District Judge

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from a Judgment from
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
DOCKETING STATEMENT

Dana W. Duncan
Attorney for the Plaintiff-Appellant
Duncan Disability Law, S.C.
State Bar I.D. No. 01008917
3930 8th Street South, Suite 201
Wisconsin Rapids, WI 54494
[phone]

Plaintiff-Appellant, Deborah Slayton, by her attorney, Dana W.
Duncan, Duncan Disability Law, S.C., submits this docketing statement
alleging the following:
1.

The District Court’s jurisdiction is contained in an appeal of
an adverse decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
under §216(i) and 223 of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.
§416(i) and 423(d).

2.

To be reviewed is an order and judgment by the Honorable,
Barbara B. Crabb, District Judge, dated January 9, 2015 and
judgment entered on the same date, affirming the decision of
the Defendant-Appellant, Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security, denying the plaintiffappellant’s application for a period of disability and
disability insurance benefits under 42 U.S.C. §§216(i) and
223.

3.

This docketing statement is submitted pursuant to Circuit
Rule 3(c) and Circuit Rule 28(a).

4.

A Notice of Appeal was filed on or about the 9th day of
February, 2015.

5.

The Notice of Appeal from the order of the Honorable
Barbara B. Crabb is an appeal from a final judgment
adjudicating all of the claims with respect to all parties.

6.

As procedural history:
A.

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §405(g), Plaintiff, Michael J.
Schaeffer, sought judicial review of the final
administrative decision of the Commissioner of Social
Security (SSA or Commissioner). The matter was filed
and submitted briefs in July, October and November
of 2014.

B.

On September 17, 2013, ALJ Richard Thrasher issued
a sixteen-page decision, finding that Slayton met the
insured status requirements of the Social Security Act
through September 30, 2009, had not engaged in
substantial gainful activity since May 1, 2009, the
alleged onset date and did not have a severe

2

impairment for Title II benefits from the alleged onset
date of May 1, 2009, through her date last insured of
September 30, 2009.
C.

The ALJ found that Slayton did not have an
impairment or combination of impairments that met
or medically equaled the severity of one of the listed
impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix
1.

D.

In establishing the residual functional capacity, the
ALJ found that Slayton had the ability “to perform
light work, with occasional climbing of ramps and
stairs; no climbing of ladders, ropes or scaffolds;
occasional stooping, kneeling and crouching;
occasional reaching overhead bilaterally; frequent
exposure to fumes, odors, dusts, gases, and poor
ventilation; and no exposure to moving machine parts
or unprotected heights.”

E.

The ALJ found that Slayton was capable of
performing past relevant work as a laundry worker
(DOT No. 361.687-030, light / unskilled work). This
work does not require the performance of workrelated activities precluded by the claimant's residual
functional capacity.

F.

The ALJ found that “Although the claimant is capable
of performing past relevant work, there also are other
jobs existing in the national economy that she is able
to perform.”

G.

The ALJ that Slayton was born on July 11, 1956, was
52 years old, which was defined as an individual
closely approaching advanced age, on the alleged
disability onset date, had a limited education and was
able to communicate in English.

H.

He also found that “Prior to her 55th birthday of July
10, 2011, under the regulations, in the alternative,
considering the claimant's age, education, work
experience, and residual functional capacity, there
were other jobs that exist in significant numbers in the

3

national economy that the claimant also could have
performed.”
I.

The vocational expert testified that given all of these
factors the individual would be able to perform the
requirements of representative occupations such as
packager (DOT No. 920.687034, light / unskilled
work, of which there are 40,000 jobs in the national
economy), folding machine operator (DOT No.
794.687-034, light / unskilled work, of which there are
30,000 jobs in the national economy) and assembly
(DOT No. 920.687-026, light / unskilled work, of
which there are 25,000 jobs in the national economy)
(See Hearing Record).

J.

A finding of “not disabled” was therefore appropriate
under the framework of the above-cited rule, through
July 11, 2011. Thereafter, the records show the
claimant could perform her past relevant work as a
laundry worker, as discussed in detail above.

K.

The ALJ also found that, while a grant would be
alternatively warranted under Medical-Vocational
Rule 202.01 at age 55, such was not appropriate
because the laundry worker position can be done as
normally performed under the DOT and, hence, a
denial is warranted at Step 4 of the sequential
evaluation process.

L.

Following the submission of briefs, the Honorable
Barbara B. Crabb, United States District Judge, issued
an Opinion and Order dated January 9, 2015, and the
judgment entered the same date, upholding the
decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

Dated this 9th day of February, 2015.

4

Respectfully submitted,
Duncan Disability Law, S.C.
Attorneys for the Plaintiff-Appellant

/s/ Dana W. Duncan
Dana W. Duncan
State Bar I.D. No. 01008917
3930 8th Street South, Suite 201
Wisconsin Rapids, WI 54494
[phone]

5