Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Benton Division. No. 89 C 4191. James L. Foreman, Chief Judge.
Before Hon. William J. Bauer, Chief Judge, Hon. Richard A. Posner, Circuit Judge, Hon. Thomas E. Fairchild, Senior Circuit Judge
In accordance with out order from the bench on February 12, 1992, we affirm the district court and adopt its Memorandum and Order, dated July 8, 1991, as our own.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LOUIS SULLIVAN, Secretary of
Department of Health and Human
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Frazier upon review of the Secretary's denial of the plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits. The Court also considers the plaintiff's Motion to Remand Under Section 405(g) (Document No. 15).
The plaintiff filed an application for disability insurance benefits on September 16, 1986. The application was initially denied on December 10, 1986, and the denial was affirmed upon reconsideration. A hearing was held on September 17, 1987 before Administrative Law Judge Marshall E. Williams. ALJ Williams found that the plaintiff was not disabled and, thus, was not entitled to disability insurance benefits.
The plaintiff appealed the decision to the Appeals Council, which remanded the case for a supplemental hearing on the transferability of the plaintiff's work skills. The Appeals Council stated that it agreed with the ALJ's finding that the plaintiff retains the residual functional capacity to perform light work. However, the Appeals Council found that there was no evidence in the record on the degree of vocational adjustment required for the plaintiff to transfer his skills to other jobs.
A supplemental hearing was held on August 26, 1988, before Administrative Law Judge Andre Trawick, Jr., who also concluded that the plaintiff is not disabled His decision became final when the Appeals Council denied the plaintiff's request for further review.
The plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court seeking a judicial review of the denial of benefits. The plaintiff's brief in support of his complaint listed six "issues" for review. The magistrate Judge rejected the plaintiff's arguments on each issue and recommended that the Secretary's determination be affirmed. As discussed more fully below, the ...