United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Northern Division, at 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 her current application for disability insurance
benefits and supplemental security income benefits in April
2010, alleging disability beginning in April 2010, due to
"carpal tunnel syndrome, back problems, shoulder
problems, neck problems, leg problems, osteoarthritis,
anxiety and depression" (Tr. 378). This application was
denied initially and on reconsideration. In 2014, an
Administrative Law Judge found Plaintiff not disabled under
the Social Security Act (Tr. 199). She requested Appeals
Council review; the Appeals Council found errors in the
ALJ's evaluation of the medical source opinion evidence
and remanded the case back to an ALJ for re-evaluation of
that evidence (Tr. 219-21).
remand, an administrative hearing was conducted by
Administrative Law Judge Andrew Gollin (hereinafter
"ALJ"), wherein Plaintiff testified. At the
hearing, Connie O'Brien-Heckler, 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 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.
Plaintiff was 44 years on the date she alleges she became
disabled. She has a high school education and her past
relevant work experience consists of work as a sewing machine
operator, server, extruder operator, injection molder and
1 of the sequential analysis, the ALJ found that Plaintiff
had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the
alleged onset date of disability (Tr. 14).
then determined, at Step 2, that Plaintiff suffers from
osteoarthritis, carpal tunnel syndrome of the bilateral
hands, degeneration of the right and left shoulder joints,
degenerative disc disease of the lumbar as well as cervical
spines, radiculopathy, depression and anxiety, which he ...