United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Southern Division, London
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
R. Wilhoit, Jr. United States District Judge
has brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §405(g) to
challenge a final decision of the Defendant denying
Plaintiffs application for disability insurance benefits and
supplemental security income benefits. The Court having
reviewed the record in this case and the dispositive motions
filed by the parties, and being otherwise sufficiently
advised, for the reasons set forth herein, finds that the
decision of the Administrative Law Judge is supported by
substantial evidence and should be affirmed.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
filed his current application for disability insurance
benefits and supplemental security income benefits in late
2012, alleging disability due to "back/neck problems,
fibromyalgia, arthritis [and] anxiety" (Tr. 243). This
application was denied initially and on reconsideration.
Thereafter, upon request by Plaintiff, an administrative
hearing was conducted by Administrative Law Judge Tommye C.
Mangus (hereinafter "ALJ"), wherein Plaintiff,
accompanied by counsel, testified. At the hearing, Julian M.
Nadolsky, a vocational expert (hereinafter "VE"),
hearing, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 416.920, the ALJ
performed the following five-step sequential analysis in
order to determine whether the Plaintiff was disabled:
Step 1: If the claimant is performing substantial gainful
work, he is not disabled.
Step 2: If the claimant is not performing substantial gainful
work, his impairment(s) must be severe before he can be found
to be disabled based upon the requirements in 20 C.F.R.
Step 3; If the claimant is not performing substantial gainful
work and has a severe impairment (or impairments) that has
lasted or is expected to last for a continuous period of at
least twelve months, and his impairments (or impairments)
meets or medically equals a listed impairment contained in
Appendix 1, Subpart P, Regulation No. 4, the claimant is
disabled without further inquiry.
Step 4: If the claimant's impairment (or impairments)
does not prevent him from doing his past relevant work, he is
Step 5: Even if the claimant's impairment or impairments
prevent him from performing his past relevant work, if other
work exists in significant numbers in the national economy
that accommodates his residual functional capacity and
vocational factors, he is not disabled.
issued a decision finding that Plaintiff was not disabled
(Tr. 14-27). Plaintiff was 41 years old at the time of the
hearing decision. He has an 8thgrade education
(Tr. 244). His past relevant work experience consists of work
as a truck driver and bulldozer operator (Tr. 234, 245). He
was laid off in 2012.
1 of the sequential analysis, the ALJ found that Plaintiff
had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the
alleged onset date of disability (Tr. 16).
then determined, at Step 2, that Plaintiff suffers from
depression, anxiety, history of polysubstance abuse and mild
spine degenerative changes, which he found to be
"severe" within the meaning of the Regulations (Tr.
3, the ALJ found that Plaintiffs impairments did not meet or
medically equal any ...