Bubb, Timothy v. Colvin, Carolyn

Filing 20

Transmission of Notice of Appeal, Docketing Statement, Opinion and Order, Judgment, Docket Sheet and Transcript Request Form to Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals re: 16 Notice of Appeal, (Attachments: # 1 Docketing Statement, # 2 Opinion and Order, # 3 Judgment, # 4 Docket Sheet, # 5 Transcript Request Form) (lak)

CASE NO. 17-______

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
TIMOTHY LAYNE BUBB,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Case No. 16-CV-270-slc
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Hon. Stephen L. Crocker
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
555 Birch St.
P.O. Box 217
Nekoosa, WI 54494
[phone]

Plaintiff-Appellant, Timothy Layne Bubb, by his 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, Stephen L. Crocker, Magistrate Judge, dated
December 28, 2016 and entered on December 28, 2016,
affirming the decision of the Defendant-Appellant, Nancy A.
Berryhill, 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. 14, 15.

3.

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

4.

A Notice of Appeal will be filed on or about the 24th day of
February, 2017.

5.

The Notice of Appeal from the order of the Honorable
Stephen L. Crocker, which 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, Timothy
Layne Bubb, sought judicial review of the final
administrative decision of the Commissioner of Social
Security (SSA or Commissioner). The matter was filed
on April 22, 2016, and submitted on briefs August 8,
2016, September 19, 2016, and October 5, 2016. Dkt.
11, 12, and 13.

B.

The matter was based upon an application for Child’s
Insurance Benefits filed on October 9, 2012. R299-311.

2

C.

The application was denied on October 4, 2012 and
the reconsideration denied on April 4, 2011. R158-169,
170-183.

D.

On November 6, 2014, ALJ William G. Brown issued a
twelve-page decision denying Bubb’s application for
Disabled
Child’s
Insurance
Benefits
and
Supplemental Security Income.

E.

The ALJ found that Bubb was born on February 15,
1994; had not attained age 22 as of January 1, 2010, the
alleged onset date; and had not engaged in
substantial gainful activity since January 1, 2010, the
alleged onset date. R43.

F.

Bubb had the following severe impairments: asthma;
left knee pain; depression, nos; social anxiety
disorder; a history of oppositional defiant disorder;
and personality traits. R43.

G.

At Step Three, the ALJ found that Bubb 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. R44.

F.

The ALJ found that Bubb had the residual functional
capacity to perform medium work. R45. The ALJ also
found that Bubb was:
precluded from climbing ladders, ropes
or scaffolds, from working at heights or
around
hazards
or
hazardous
machinery,
and
should
avoid
concentrated exposure to gases, fumes,
odors,
dusts,
pollutants,
air
contaminants and poor ventilation. The
claimant (was) further limited to
routine, repetitive instructions and tasks
in unskilled work with brief, superficial
and infrequent contact with co-workers,
no contact with the public, and is able to
tolerate ordinary supervision. The

3

claimant (was) able to handle the
routine stress of a routine, repetitive
work setting with no rapid pace or high
production goals. Work (was) limited to
no more than minimal math and the
claimant is limited to working with no
more than 2 to 3 others at a time.
R45.
G.

At Steps Four and Five, the ALJ found that Bubb was
unable to perform past relevant work. R50.

H.

The ALJ also found that Bubb was born on February
15, 1994 and was 15 years old which is defined as a
younger individual age 18-49 on the alleged disability
onset date. R50.

I.

The ALJ also found that Bubb had a marginal
education and was able to communicate in English.
R50.

J.

Transferability of job skills was not an issue because
Bubb did not have past relevant work.

K.

ALJ Brown found “Considering the claimant's age,
education, work experience, and residual functional
capacity, there are jobs that exist in significant
numbers in the national economy that the claimant
can perform. . . . R51.

L.

ALJ Brown found that Bubb had not been under a
disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, since
January 1, 2010, the alleged onset date. R51.

M.

On February 22, 2016 the Appeals Council denied
review, thus making the ALJ’s decision the final
decision of the Commissioner. R1-4.

N.

Bubb filed a complaint on April 22, 2016 seeking
judicial review of the final decision of the
Commissioner.

4

Dated this 24th day of February, 2017.
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
555 Birch St.
P.O. Box 217
Nekoosa, WI 54494
[phone]

5