United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington
OPINION AND ORDER
K. CALDWELL, CHIEF JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on cross-motions for summary
judgment (DE 12; 14). The Plaintiff, Jon Koref, brought this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to obtain judicial
review of an administrative decision denying his claim for
Disability Insurance Benefits. The Court, having reviewed the
record, will affirm the Commissioner's decision because
it is supported by substantial evidence and was decided by
the proper legal standards.
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied
Koref's claim (Administrative Record (“AR”)
21) and Koref now petitions this Court to review the decision
of the presiding ALJ. The Court's review of the
Commissioner's decision is limited to determining whether
it “is supported by substantial evidence and was made
pursuant to proper legal standards.” Rabbers v.
Comm'r Soc. Sec., 582 F.3d 647, 651 (6th Cir. 2009).
denying Koref's claim, the ALJ engaged in the five-step
sequential process set forth in the regulations under the
Social Security Act (the “Act”). 20 C.F.R. §
404.1520(a)-(e); see Walters v. Comm'r of Soc.
Sec., 127 F.3d 525, 529 (6th Cir. 1997).
one, the ALJ determined that the claimant has not engaged in
substantial gainful activity since December 26, 2013, the
alleged onset date. (AR at 23.)
two, the ALJ determined that Koref suffers from a bipolar
disorder/mood disorder, a severe impairment (20 CFR
404.1520(c)) (AR at 24.) Conversely, the ALJ classified
Koref's status post excision, obstructive sleep apnea,
type II diabetes, and history of squamous cell carcinoma as
nonsevere impairments. (AR at 24.)
three, the ALJ found the claimant does not have an impairment
or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals
the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR pt.
404, subpt. P, app. 1 (20 CFR 404.1520(d), 404.125, and
404.1526). (AR at 25.)
determined that Moore has the residual functional capacity
(RFC) to perform “simple, routine work tasks” and
“can maintain attention as well as concentration for
two-hour segments during an eight-hour work day.” (AR
at 27.) In addition, the ALJ noted that Koref “can
adapt to gradual changes in a routine work environment,
” but should not be required to meet “fast-paced
production quotas or goals.” (AR at 27.)
four, the ALJ found that Koref is unable to perform his past
relevant work as a truck driver or a stock clerk pursuant to
20 CFR 404.1565. (AR at 29.)
five, the ALJ determined that while Koref could not perform
any past, relevant work, he retains the ability to perform
other jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national
economy. (AR at 29.) Accordingly, the ALJ concluded that
Koref is not disabled.
raises three objections to the ALJ's decision. He first
argues that the ALJ improperly discounted his treating
physician, Dr. Welch's medical opinion. Second, Koref
contends that the ALJ failed to consider his anxiety as a
distinct impairment (AR at 17.) And finally, Koref's
third argument suggests that the ALJ erred in finding that
his symptom testimony lacked credibility. The Court agrees
with the ALJ's determinations on all three of these
The ALJ Did Not Err in Discounting the ...