United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Northern Division, Covington
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 and
supplemental security income benefits. The Court having
reviewed the record in this case and the dispositive motions
filed by the parties, 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
September 2013, alleging disability beginning in October
2010, due to "neck fusion with plate, chronic pain,
anxiety, ruptured disc, right arm and hand movement
difficulty, right shoulder pain [with] limited movement,
right arm and hand numbness, trouble sleeping (Tr. 200).
application was denied initially and on reconsideration.
upon request by Plaintiff, an administrative hearing was
conducted by Administrative Law Judge Susan Guiffre
(hereinafter "ALJ"), wherein Plaintiff, accompanied
by counsel, testified. At the hearing, Deborah Lee, 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 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. 25-37). Plaintiff was 41 years old when he alleges he
became disabled, 46 when he was last insured for DIB and 47
on the date of the hearing decision.
a high school education (Tr. 201). His past relevant work
experience consists of work as a ...