United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division
OPINION AND ORDER
K. CALDWELL, CHIEF JUDGE
matter is before the Court for consideration of cross-motions
for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff Douglas Price Gerald
and Defendant Commissioner of Social Security. (DE 13 &
16). Gerald brought this action under Section 405(g) of the
Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), to obtain
judicial review of the final decision of the Social Security
Administration (“Commissioner”) denying his claim
for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and
Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”), as provided
under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act
(“the Act”). The Court, having reviewed the
record, will reverse the Commissioner's decision and
remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with
OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS
determine whether a claimant has a compensable disability
under the Social Security Act, the administrative law judge
(“ALJ”) applies a five-step sequential process.
20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(1), (4); see also Miller v.
Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 81 F.3d 825, 835 n.6 (6th Cir.
2016) (describing the five-step evaluation process). The five
steps, in summary, are:
Step 1: If the claimant is doing substantial gainful
activity, the claimant is not disabled.
Step 2: If the claimant does not have a severe
medically determinable physical or mental impairment-i.e., an
impairment that significantly limits his or her physical or
mental ability to do basic work activities-the claimant is
Step 3: If the claimant is not doing substantial
gainful activity and is suffering from a severe impairment
that has lasted or is expected to last for a continuous
period of at least twelve months, and his or her impairment
meets or equals a listed impairment, the claimant is presumed
disabled without further inquiry.
Step 4: If the claimant's impairment does not
prevent him or her from doing his or her past relevant work,
the claimant is not disabled.
Step 5: If the claimant can make an adjustment to
other work, the claimant is not disabled. If the claimant
cannot make an adjustment to other work, the claimant is
Sorrell v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 656
Fed.App'x. 162, 169 (6th Cir. 2016) (citing Rabbers
v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., 582 F.3d 647, 652 (6th
any step in the process, the ALJ concludes that the claimant
is or is not disabled, the ALJ can then complete the
“determination or decision and [the ALJ] do[es] not go
on to the next step.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4).
In the first four steps of the process the claimant bears the
burden of proof. Sorrell, 656 Fed.App'x. at 169
(quoting Jones v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. 336 F.3d
469, 474 (6th Cir. 2003)). If the claim proceeds to step
five, however, “the burden shifts to the Commissioner
to identify a significant number of jobs in the economy that
accommodate the claimant's residual functional capacity .
. . and vocational profile.” Id. (internal
citations omitted); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g)(1).
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Gerald was born in 1957. (Administrative Record
(“AR”) 54). He is divorced and does not have any
minor children. (AR 31). He completed three years of college
but did not obtain a postsecondary degree. (AR 32). Gerald
served in the U.S. Navy for three years. (AR 33, 45). Before
he allegedly became disabled, Gerald worked as a pari-mutuel
clerk, material handler and ...