United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Ashland
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
R. WILHOIT, 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 this matter should be remanded for further proceedings.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
filed her current application for disability insurance
benefits on July 11, 2013, alleging disability beginning on
May 29, 2013, arthritis, fibromyalgia, lumbar spine pain,
panic attacks and high cholesterol (Tr. 314).
application was denied initially and on reconsideration.
Subsequently, an administrative hearing was conducted by
Administrative Law Judge John M. Dowling (hereinafter
"ALJ"), wherein Plaintiff, accompanied by counsel,
testified.. At the hearing, Gina K. Baldwin, 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 impairments) 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 his decision finding that Plaintiff was not disabled.
Plaintiff was 56 years old at the time she alleges
disability. She completed two years of college and has worked
as a teacher's aide (Tr. 315).
1 of the sequential analysis, the ALJ found that Plaintiff
has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the
alleged onset date of disability (Tr. 16). The ALJ then
determined, at Step 2, that Plaintiff suffers from left
shoulder tendinopathy and bursitis, which he determined to be
"severe" within the meaning of the pertinent
regulations (Tr. 16). At Step 3, the ALJ found that
Plaintiffs impairments did not meet or medically equal any of
the listed impairments (Tr. 20). The ALJ further found that
Plaintiff could perform her past work as a teacher's aide
(Tr. 22). Accordingly, the ALJ found Plaintiff not to be
Appeals Council denied Plaintiffs request for review and
adopted the ALJ's decision as the ...