United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Northern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
R. Wilhoilt 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. 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
alleging disability beginning due to heart problems, high
blood pressure, high cholesterol, knee problems and carpal
tunnel syndrome (Tr. 380). This application was denied
initially and on reconsideration. Thereafter, upon request by
Plaintiff, an administrative hearing was conducted by
Administrative Law Judge John Dowling (hereinafter
"ALJ"), wherein Plaintiff, accompanied by counsel,
testified. At the hearing, Ellen C. Jenkins, a vocational
expert (hereinafter "VE"), also testified.
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. 78-89), Plaintiff was 46 years old on the alleged date
of disability. He has a 12th grade education (Tr.
381). His past relevant work experience consists of work as a
iron worker (Tr. 382).
1 of the sequential analysis, the ALJ found that Plaintiff
had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since
February 1, 2013, the alleged onset date of disability
then determined, at Step 2, that Plaintiff suffers from
psoriatic arthritis, caipal tunnel syndrome and degenerative
disc disease, which he found to be "severe" within
the meaning of the Regulations (Tr. 81-82).
3, the ALJ found that Plaintiffs impairments did not meet or
medically equal any ...