United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Bowling Green Division
MEMORANDUM, OPINION, AND ORDER
Brent Brennenstuhl, United States Magistrate Judge.
the Court is the complaint (DN 1) of Plaintiff John Michael
Isaacs seeking judicial review of the final decision of the
Commissioner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Both the
Plaintiff (DN 13) and Defendant (DN 16) have filed a Fact and
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73, the parties
have consented to the undersigned United States Magistrate
Judge conducting all further proceedings in this case,
including issuance of a memorandum opinion and entry of
judgment, with direct review by the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals in the event an appeal is filed (DN 11). By Order
entered September 23, 2016 (DN 12), the parties were notified
that oral arguments would not be held unless a written
request therefor was filed and granted. No such request was
filed an application for Disability Insurance and
Supplemental Security Income benefits on October 9, 2013 (Tr.
198-211). Plaintiff alleged that he became disabled on June
15, 2013 as a result of:
1. Back and neck problems
3. Back and neck disorders, Status post cervical surgery
5. Sleep apnea
6. Right hip pain, difficulty ambulating
7. Poor memory, concentration, focus; confusion
8. Depression, anxiety
9. Heart murmur 10. Acid reflux
(Tr. 247). Administrative Law Judge David S. Pang conducted a
video hearing on March 19, 2015 from Baltimore, Maryland.
Plaintiff was present in Bowling Green, Kentucky and
represented by Charles Burchett. Also present and testifying
was Alissa Smith, vocational expert. Present but not
testifying was Debra Card, hearing monitor.
decision dated April 16, 2015, the ALJ evaluated this adult
disability claim pursuant to the five-step sequential
evaluation process promulgated by the Commissioner (Tr.
99-117). At the first step, the ALJ found Plaintiff has not
engaged in substantial gainful activity since June 15, 2013,
the alleged onset date (Tr. 104). At the second step, the ALJ
determined that Plaintiff's spine disorder is a
“severe” impairment within the meaning of the
regulations (Tr. 104). Also at the second step, the ALJ
determined that Plaintiff's organic mental disorder is a
“non-severe” impairment within the meaning of the
regulations (Tr. 105). At the third step, the ALJ concluded
that Plaintiff does not have an impairment or combination of
impairments that meets or medically equals one of the listed
impairments in Appendix 1 (Tr. 106).
fourth step, the ALJ found Plaintiff has the residual
functional capacity to perform a restricted range of light
work (Tr. ...