United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Southern Division, London
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
R. Wilholt, 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, 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 on November 21, 2013, alleging disability beginning
in September 2013, due to "cervical problems, high blood
pressure, low back pain, knee pain, problems hearing and
being a slow reader" (Tr. 247).
application was denied initially and on reconsideration.
Thereafter, upon request by Plaintiff, an administrative
hearing was conducted by Administrative Law Judge Raymond
Souza (hereinafter "ALJ"), wherein Plaintiff,
accompanied by counsel, testified. At the hearing, Marianne
K. Lumpe, a vocational expert (hereinafter "VE"),
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.
Plaintiff was 39 years old at the time he alleges he became
disabled. He has a GED and his past relevant work consists of
work as a heavy equipment operator (Tr. 247-249).
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. 29).
then determined, at Step 2, that Plaintiff suffers from
degenerative disc disease, degenerative joint disease in the
his left knee, depression and hypertension, which he found to