United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
R. Wilhoit. Jr. Unltod 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 her current application for disability insurance
benefits on June 5, 2013, alleging disability beginning in
December 2012, due to due to problems with her shoulders,
back, and legs; seizures; headaches; attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder (ADHD); posttraumatic stress disorder
(PTSD); anxiety; and depression.
application was denied initially and on reconsideration.
upon request by Plaintiff, an administrative hearing was
conducted by Administrative Law Judge Jonathon Stanley
(hereinafter "ALJ"), wherein Plaintiff, accompanied
by counsel, testified. At the hearing, Joyce P. Forrest, a
vocational expert (hereinafter "VE"), also
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. 293-307). Plaintiff was 26 years old at the time of the
hearing decision. She has a high school education and her
past relevant work experience consists of work as a machine
press operator, labeler, material handler, fast food worker,
and sewing machine operator.
1 of the sequential analysis, the ALJ found that Plaintiff
had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the