United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
H Lindsay, Magistrate Judge United States District Court.
the Court is the Complaint (DN 1) of Plaintiff, Mary Ardella
Lewis (“Plaintiff'). In her Complaint, Plaintiff
seeks judicial review of the final decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security (the
“Commissioner”). See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)
(2012) (“Any individual, after any final decision of
the Commissioner of Social Security . . . may obtain a review
of such decision by a civil action commenced within sixty
days after the mailing to him of notice of such decision . .
. .”). Plaintiff filed a Fact and Law Summary. (DN 15.)
The Commissioner also filed a Fact and Law Summary. (DN 21.)
Parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate
judge to enter judgment in this case with direct review by
the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in the event an appeal is
filed. (DN 14.) Therefore, this matter is ripe for review.
For the reasons below, the final decision of the Commissioner
filed an application for a period of disability and
disability insurance benefits on April 2, 2014. (R. at
275-76.) Plaintiff also filed an application for supplemental
security income on the same day. (Id. at 277-83.) On
March 22, 2016, Administrate Law Judge Christopher C.
Sheppard (the “ALJ”) conducted a hearing on
Plaintiff's application. (Id. at 44-89.) In a
decision dated, April 28, 2016, the ALJ engaged in the
five-step evaluation process promulgated by the Commissioner
to determine whether an individual is disabled. (Id.
at 21-37.) In doing so, the ALJ made these findings:
1. The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the
Social Security Act through March 31, 2014. (Id. at
claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity
since October 26, 2013, the amended alleged onset date.
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments: human
immunodeficiency virus positive status (HIV); anemia;
dysfunction of sacroiliac joint; degenerative disc disease;
borderline intellectual functioning; and bipolar disorder.
4. 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 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart
P, Appendix 1. (Id. at 27.)
5. The claimant has the residual functional capacity to
perform a reduced range of light work as defined in 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b). She can lift and carry 20
pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently. She can sit six
hours in an eight-hour workday. She can stand and/or walk six
hours in an eight-hour workday, but in intervals of no more
than 45 minutes continuously. She can push and pull up to the
above-stated exertional limitations. The claimant can climb
ramps and stairs frequently and she can climb ropes, ladders,
or scaffolds occasionally. She can stoop, kneel, crouch, and
crawl frequently. The claimant should avoid workplace hazards
such as unprotected heights and dangerous machinery. She
should avoid full-body vibration. The claimant can perform
simple, routine tasks. She can maintain attention and
concentration for two-hour segments over the course of the
eight-hour workday. She can interact as needed with
supervisors and coworkers sufficiently for task completion
and she can interact with the general public occasionally.
The claimant can adapt to gradual changes in the routine work
environment. Her work should not require fast-paced
production quotas or goals. The claimant requires oral
instructions or initial demonstration. (Id. at 29.)
6. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work.
(Id. at 35.)
7. The claimant was born on September 19, 1963 and was 45
years old, which is defined as an individual closely
approaching advanced age, on the alleged disability onset
8. The claimant has a limited education and is able to
communicate in English. (Id.)
9. Transferability of job skills is not material to the
determination of disability because using the
Medical-Vocational Rules as a framework supports a finding
that the claimant is “not disabled, ” whether or
not the claimant has transferrable job skills. (Id.)
10. Considering the claimant's age, education, work
experience, and residual functional capacity, there are jobs
that exist in significant No. in the national economy that
the claimant can perform. (Id.)
11. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined
in the Social Security Act from October 26, 2013, through the