United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Southern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
B. WLLBOLT. 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 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 in April 2014, alleging disability beginning on
December 16, 2010, due to carpal tunnel syndrome in both
hands, depression and other conditions (Tr.
273). This application was denied initially and
on reconsideration. Thereafter, upon request by Plaintiff, an
administrative hearing was conducted by Administrative Law
Judge John Dowling (hereinafter "ALJ"), wherein
Plaintiff, accompanied by counsel, testified. At the hearing,
Mitch Veeder, 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 a decision finding that Plaintiff was not disabled
(Tr. 16-39). Plaintiff was 54 years old on her date last
insured. She has a GED (Tr. 274). Her past relevant work
experience consists of work as a retail cashier (Tr. 274).
1 of the sequential analysis, the ALJ found that Plaintiff
had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the
alleged onset date of disability through her date last
insured, December 31, 2015 (Tr. 18).
then determined, at Step 2, that Plaintiff suffers from
osteoarthritis, carpal tunnel syndrome and degenerative disc
disease of the lumbar spine, which he found to be
"severe" within the meaning of the Regulations (Tr.
3, the ALJ found that Plaintiffs impairments did not meet or
medically equal any of the listed impairments (Tr. 21-22).
further found that Plaintiff could not return to her past
relevant work (Tr. 28) but determined that she has the
residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform
light work with certain postural, ...