Spies, Jutta v. Colvin, Carolyn

Filing 29

Transmission of Notice of Appeal, Docketing Statement, Order, Judgment and Docket Sheet to Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals re: 25 Notice of Appeal, (Attachments: # 1 Docketing Statement, # 2 Order, # 3 Judgment, # 4 Docket Sheet) (lak)

CASE NO. 15-_____
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUTTA SPIES,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No.:

14-cv-568

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
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, Jutta Spies, 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.

The judgment to be reviewed is an order and judgment by
the Honorable, James D. Peterson, District Judge, dated May
27, 2015 and 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. Dkt. 23, 24.

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 24th day of
July, 2015.

5.

The Notice of Appeal from the order of the Honorable James
D. Peterson, is an appeal from a final judgment adjudicating
all of the claims with respect to all parties.

6.

As procedural history:
A.

On April 13, 2012, the claimant filed a Title II
application for a period of disability and disability
insurance benefits, and a Title XVI, application for
Supplemental Security Income, alleging disability
beginning October 8, 2008. The claim was denied
initially and upon reconsideration

B.

On January 22, 2014, ALJ Joseph D. Jacobson issued a
nine-page decision. He found that Spies met the
insured status requirements of the Social Security Act
through December 31, 2013, had not engaged in
substantial gainful activity since October 8, 2008, the
alleged onset date, and had the following severe

2

impairments:
peripheral
neuropathy,
obesity,
osteoarthritis of the back and knees, and cervical disc
disease.
C.

In determining the residual functional capacity, the
ALJ found that Spies could perform:
Light work as defined in 20 CFR
404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) except she
needs to be able to alternate between
seated and standing positions at will
(providing that she would not be off
task over 10% of the work period); she
cannot climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds
and can only occasionally stoop, crouch,
kneel, crawl, or climb ramps and stairs;
she needs to avoid exposure to large
moving machinery and unprotected
heights; she needs to elevate her feet 12
to fifteen inches off the floor while
seated; and would need to be off task up
to 10% of the work period in addition to
regularly scheduled breaks.

D.

The ALJ first found that Spies was “capable of
performing past relevant work as a camera operator.”
The ALJ also made alternative findings at step five.

E.

The ALJ also found that “Although the claimant is
capable of performing past relevant work, there are
other jobs existing in the national economy that she is
also able to perform. Therefore, I make the following
alternative findings for step five of the sequential
evaluation process.”

F.

The ALJ found that the claimant was born on
November 9, 1964 and was 43 years old, which is
defined as a younger individual age 18-49, on the
alleged disability onset date, had at least a high school
education, and was able to communicate in English.

G.

The ALJ also found, “In the alternative, considering
the claimant's age, education, work experience, and

3

residual functional capacity, there are other jobs that
exist in significant numbers in the national economy
that the claimant also can perform.”
H.

The ALJ also noted:
However, the claimant's ability to
perform all or substantially all of the
requirements of this level of work has
been impeded by additional limitations.
To determine the extent to which these
limitations erode the unskilled light
occupational base, I asked the
vocational expert whether jobs exist in
the Wisconsin economy for an
individual with the claimant's age,
education, work experience, and
residual functional capacity. The
vocational expert testified that given all
of these factors the individual would be
able to perform the requirements of
representative occupations such as 1,500
inspecting/sorting jobs; 18,000 cashier
jobs; and 2,000 stock clerk positions.

I.

Accordingly, the ALJ found that Spies had not been
under a disability, as defined in the Social Security
Act, from October 8, 2008, through the date of this
decision. R28.

J.

Following a timely request for Review of
Administrative Decision, the Appeals Council denied
review on June 17, 2014, making the ALJ’s decision
the final decision of the Commissioner.

K.

Following the submission of briefs, the Honorable
James D. Peterson, United States District Judge,
issued an Opinion and Order on May 27, 2015 and
docketed on said date which recommended that the
Commissioner’s final decision in this matter be
affirmed. A judgment was docketed on May 27, 2015,
affirming the Commissioner’s Decision.

4

Dated this 24th day of July, 2015.
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