Tim A. Baker

How Judge Baker rules, drawn from 8 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Position
magistrate
Commissioned
2001-10-01
Education
Indiana University (B.A. journalism, 1984); Valparaiso University School of Law (J.D. with distinction, 1989)
Signed orders read
8

How Judge Baker decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

Baker enforces the Seventh Circuit's concentration-persistence-and-pace hypothetical rule (Varga/Yurt): he recommends remand where the ALJ's vocational-expert hypothetical addresses concentration but not persistence and pace, even on a thin brief.

“the Magistrate Judge recommends Sears's request for remand [Filing No. 17] be granted under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further consideration consistent with this opinion.”

Baker treats the duty to clarify an inadequate consultative-examiner report as mandatory before the agency may discount the report for vagueness.

“The ALJ should have reached back to Dr. Kadlec to clarify the consultative examiner's report before discounting it for vagueness.”

Cautions

He applies harmless-error review (McKinzey) the other way: he affirms despite an articulation error in weighing a treating physician where that physician's own records (check-box forms, conservative treatment) do not support the severe restrictions opined, and he rejects the Commissioner's post-hoc rationale (Jelinek).

“the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment or remand be denied [Filing No. 19], and the Commissioner's decision be affirmed.”

A generalized claim that arbitration is unfair did not defeat a written vehicle-purchase arbitration agreement where the opponent offered no concrete proof of bias or unfairness.

“Accordingly, the Court rejects Plaintiff's argument that arbitration would not be fair because the arbitration agreement limits her rights.”

He treats fabricated case names, citations, pin cites, courts, and quotations as deliberate deception rather than a verification mistake, while tailoring Rule 11 sanctions to deterrence and the litigant's financial circumstances.

“Accordingly, the Court sanctions Plaintiff in the amount of $1,000 for his actions.”

A discovery-sanctions request based on alleged video alteration or spoliation requires evidence of improper conduct, prejudice, and the relevant intent; technical-sounding speculation is insufficient.

“Thus, Clay's claim that Defendants intentionally altered videos produced in initial disclosures is unsupported by evidence.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Ledbetter v. Colvin (Acting Commissioner of Social Security)
1:13-cv-01173-SEB-TAB · 2014-06-13
Social security review (plaintiff) Denied

“the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment or remand be denied [Filing No. 19], and the Commissioner's decision be affirmed.”

Henderson Sears v. Berryhill (Acting Commissioner of Social Security)
4:17-cv-00042-RLY-TAB · 2017-11-15
Social security review (plaintiff) Granted

“the Magistrate Judge recommends Sears's request for remand [Filing No. 17] be granted under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further consideration consistent with this opinion.”

Richardson v. Colvin (Commissioner of Social Security)
1:14-cv-00548-TAB-SEB · 2015-07-27
Social security review (plaintiff) Denied

“The Court, having found in favor of Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin and against Plaintiff Pamela Richardson, enters judgment in favor of the Defendant and against Plaintiff. Accordingly, the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed.”

Rodney T. v. Bisignano
1:25-cv-01226-TAB-JRS · 2026-05-07
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Denied

“For all these reasons, Plaintiff's request for remand is denied. [Filing No. 12.]”

Mark R. v. Bisignano
1:25-cv-00572-TAB-SEB · 2026-02-02
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's request for remand [Filing No. 11] is granted. The final decision of the Commissioner is reversed, and the case is remanded to the agency for further proceedings.”

Ennols v. Westlake Services, LLC
1:26-cv-00580-JRS-TAB · 2026-04-08
Motion to compel arbitration (defendant) Granted

“For the reasons set forth above, Defendant's motion to compel arbitration [Filing No. 8] is granted. This case is stayed pending arbitration.”

Maxwell v. Michael
1:24-cv-01365-JRS-TAB · 2026-05-26
Motion for sanctions (defendants) Granted in part

“Accordingly, the Court sanctions Plaintiff in the amount of $1,000 for his actions.”

Clay v. Thorup
1:25-cv-00018-JPH-TAB · 2026-06-05
Motion for sanctions (plaintiff) Denied

“Clay's omnibus motion, including its request for sanctions; her motions related to late and/or non-compliant replies; and her motion for a protective order [Filing Nos. 174, 197, 198, 205, 206, and 207] are denied in their entirety.”

Motion for extension of time (plaintiff) Denied
Motion for leave to file oversized brief (plaintiff) Denied
Motion for protective order (plaintiff) Denied
Motion for leave to file amended reply (plaintiff) Denied
Motions to strike (plaintiff) Denied

Draft for Judge Baker with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Baker, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Baker's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace