United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
R. WILHOLT, 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 January
2013, alleging disability beginning in May 2012, due to
fibromylagia, fibrosis and OCD (Tr. 280). This application
was denied initially and on reconsideration. Thereafter, upon
request by Plaintiff, an administrative hearing was conducted
by Administrative Law Judge Karen R. Jackson (hereinafter
"ALJ"), wherein Plaintiff, accompanied by counsel,
testified. At the hearing, Betty Hale, 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.
Plaintiff was 40 years old on the date of the alleged onset
of disability. He has a high school education education (Tr.
281). His past relevant work experience consists of work as a
Bindery supervisor (Tr. 281).
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. 19).
then determined, at Step 2, that Plaintiff suffers from right
carpal tunnel syndrome, OCD, pain disorder, generalized
anxiety disorder, obesity, fibromyalgia and rule-out
cognitive disorder, which he found to be "severe"
within the meaning of the Regulations (Tr. 19-20).
3, the ALJ found that Plaintiffs impairments did not meet or
medically equal any ...