Brown, Betty v. Berryhill, Nancy

Filing 19

Transmission of Notice of Appeal, Docketing Statement, Opinion and Order, Judgment, Transcript Information Sheet and Docket Sheet to Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals re: 15 Notice of Appeal, (Attachments: # 1 Docketing Statement, # 2 Opinion and Order, # 3 Judgment, # 4 Transcript Information Sheet, # 5 Docket Sheet) (lak)

CASE NO. 16-______
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
BETTY BROWN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.

Case No.: 14-CV-894

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Hon. Barbara B. Crabb
United State 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, Betty Brown, 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, Barbara B. Crabb, District Judge, dated
November 17, 2015 and entered on November 17, 2015,
affirming the decision of the Defendant-Appellant, Carolyn
W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, denying
the plaintiff-appellant’s application for a period of disability
and disability insurance benefits under 42 U.S.C. §§216(i)
and 223. Dkt. 13, 14.

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 11th day of
January, 2016.

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, Brown, sought
judicial review of the final administrative decision of
the Commissioner of Social Security (SSA or
Commissioner). The matter was filed and submitted
on briefs in May 15, 2015, July 13, 2015 and August 13,
2015.
B. The matter was based upon an applications filed on
March 11, 2007 for Disability Insurance Benefits and
March 12, 2007 for Supplemental Security Income.
R113-121.

2

C. The applications were denied on May 27, 2007 and
the reconsideration denied on July 25, 2007. R62-63,
65-66.
D. On August 28, 2014, ALJ John H. Pleuss issued a nineteenpage decision.
E. The ALJ found that Brown met the insured status
requirements of the Social Security Act through September
30, 2008, had not engaged in substantial gainful activity
since January 24, 2007, the alleged onset date, and had the
following severe impairments: back impairment, obesity,
and migraine headaches. R288.
F. Brown 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. R288. The ALJ indicated that he considered
Listing 1.04 and rejected Dr. Shannon’s opinion that the
Listing was met. R288.
He also indicated that he
considered Listing 11.03 for Brown’s migraine headaches.
R289.
G. Turning to the residual functional capacity, the ALJ found
that Brown was able to perform less than the full range of
sedentary work. R290. She was able to lift and carry no
more than 10 pounds. She was precluded from any
crawling, kneeling, or climbing of ropes, ladders, or
scaffolds. She was precluded from more than occasional
stooping, bending, crouching, twisting, or climbing of
ramps or stairs. She required a sit/stand option so that she
need not sit for more than 30 minutes at a time or stand for
more than 30 minutes at a time. R290. She was precluded
from more than frequent reaching in any direction with
either upper extremity. She was precluded from work at
unprotected heights or around dangerous machinery. She
was likely to be off task about 5 to 10 percent of the
workday, in addition to regularly scheduled breaks from
work. R290.
H. Turning to steps four and five, the ALJ found that Brown
was unable to perform any past relevant work. The ALJ
noted, “The vocational expert testified that the claimant
has past work as follows: cook, which is medium semiskilled (SVP3) work. The claimant's residual functional
capacity for less than the full range of sedentary work
precludes her return to her past relevant work.” R301.

3

I.

The ALJ also found that Brown was born on July 14, 1984,
was 22 years old, which was defined as a younger
individual age 18-44, on the alleged disability onset date,
had a limited education and was able to communicate in
English.

J.

The ALJ found that “There (were) jobs that exist in
significant numbers in the national economy that (Brown
could) perform. Noting that Brown’s “ability to perform all
or substantially all of the requirements of this level of work
(would be) impeded by additional limitations,”the ALJ
asked the vocational expert whether jobs exist in the
national economy for an individual with the claimant's
age, education, work experience, and residual functional
capacity.

K. The vocational expert testified that, given all of these
factors, the individual would be able to perform
representative occupations such as:
Assembler (e.g., DOT 739.687-182), with 1,750 jobs
in the Wisconsin economy and 65,000 jobs in the
national economy;
Order Clerk (e.g., DOT 209.507-014), with 760 jobs
in the Wisconsin economy and
79,300 jobs in the national economy;
Office Helper (e.g., DOT 249.587-018), with 1,660
jobs in the Wisconsin economy and 99,950 jobs in
the national economy;
Video Surveillance Monitor (e.g., DOT 379.367010), with 921 jobs in the Wisconsin economy and
16,736 jobs in the national economy;
Greeter/Attendant (e.g. DOT 342.667-014), with
906 sedentary jobs in the Wisconsin economy and
1,756 sedentary jobs in the national economy, and
Telephone Solicitor (call center) (e.g. DOT 299.357014), with 712 jobs in the Wisconsin economy.
R302.

4

L.

The ALJ noted that a finding of “not disabled” was
therefore appropriate. R302. Accordingly, the application
for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental
Security Income were denied. R302.

M.

Accordingly, Brown had not been under a disability, as
defined in the Social Security Act, from July 1, 2007,
through the date of the decision. 303. Based on the
application for a period of disability and disability
insurance benefits filed on July 1, 2010 Brown was not
disabled under sections 216(i) and 223(d) of the Social
Security Act and based on the application for
supplemental security income filed on July 1, 2010, the
Brown was not disabled under section 1614(a)(3)(A) of the
Social Security Act. R303.

N.

Brown filed in Federal District Court, Western District
of Wisconsin on December 24, 2012. Dkt. No. 1.

O.

The ALJ erred in failing to give adequately consider
Brown’s obesity, the opinion of the treating physician
proper weight and failing to provide a proper
foundation for the vocational testimony in accordance
with law.

P.

Following the submission of briefs, the Honorable
Barbara B. Crabb, United States District Judge, issued
an Opinion and Order on June 2, 2014 upholding the
decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

Dated this 11th day of January, 2016.

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