United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington
K. CALDWELL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
OPINION AND ORDER
plaintiff Audrey Folger brought this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 405(g) to obtain judicial review of an
administrative decision denying her claim for Supplemental
Security Income Benefits. The Court, having reviewed the
record, will affirm the Commissioner's decision.
Court's review of the decision by the Administrative Law
Judge (“ALJ”) 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 Folger'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, e.g., Walters v. Comm'r of Soc.
Sec., 127 F.3d 525, 529 (6th Cir. 1997).
one, the ALJ determined that Folger had not engaged in
substantial gainful activity since July 22, 2013.
(Administrative Record (“AR”) at 15.)
two, the ALJ determined that Folger suffered from the severe
impairment of mild mental disability. (AR at 15.)
three, the ALJ found that Folger does not have an impairment
or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals
the severity of one of the listed impairments. (AR at 18.)
proceeding to step four, the ALJ determined that Folger has
the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform a full
range of work at all exertional levels but with the following
The claimant requires entry level work with simple repetitive
1-2-3 step procedures. She can tolerate only occasional
changes in work routines. She cannot perform work that
requires detailed or complex problem-solving, independent
planning or the setting of goals. She should work in an
object-oriented environment with only occasional and casual
contact with coworkers, supervisors, or the general public.
There should be no requirement for literacy.
(AR at 19.)
four, the ALJ determined that Folger does not have past
relevant work. (AR at 21.)
five, the ALJ determined that, considering the RFC described
above and Folger's age, education, and work experience,
there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the
national economy that Folger can perform and, thus, she is
not disabled. (AR at 21.)
argues that the ALJ erred in failing to find that she did not
have an impairment or combination of impairments that meet or
medically equal the severity of the impairment at Listing
12.05(c). At the time of the ALJ's decision, that listing
required claimant to demonstrate an IQ of 60 through 70
and “a physical or other mental impairment
imposing an additional and significant work-related
limitation of function.” Folger argues that the ALJ
erred in failing to find that her anxiety imposed significant
work-related limitations on her.
points to the treatment notes of her social worker at
Comprehensive Care, Lee Hunt, which indicate that Folger has
poor coping skills and impaired social functioning. First, a
social worker is not an “acceptable medical
source.” See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1513(a), (d),
416.913(a), (d); see also Payne v. Commissioner, 402
Fed.Appx. 109, (6th Cir.2010) (“[S]ocial workers are
not acceptable medical sources under social security
regulations.”). There is no “treating social
worker rule, ” and the opinion of a social worker is