United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
R. WILHOIT, JR. 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 applications, for disability insurance benefits and
supplemental security income benefits in October 2012,
alleging disability beginning at the same time, due to back
problems (Tr. 291). This application was denied, but remanded
by the Appeals Council for further review of the medical
source opinion evidence and a consultative examination (Tr.
134-138). On remand, an administrative hearing was conducted
by Administrative Law Judge Karen Jackson (hereinafter
"ALJ"), wherein Plaintiff testified. At the
hearing, William Brauning, 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
(Tr. 9-18). Plaintiff was 46 years old at the time the
alleges he became disabled. He has a high school education
and his past relevant work experience consists of work as an
equipment cleaner and painter.
1 of the sequential analysis, the ALJ found that Plaintiff
had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the
alleged onset date of disability.
then determined, at Step 2, that Plaintiff suffers from
"degenerative disc disease/ disc bulges with neural
foraminal narrowing, cervical spine; mild degernative disc
disease / mild facety hypertrophy, lumbar soine; chrinoc
obstrucive pulminary disease / asthma", which he found
to be "severe" within the meaning of the
3, the ALJ found that Plaintiffs impairments did not meet or
medically equal any of the listed impairments. In doing so,