United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division
KELLY R. WHEELER, Plaintiff,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
H LINDSAY, MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Kelly R. Wheeler has filed suit challenging the Social
Security Commissioner's denial of her request for
disability insurance benefits (“DIB”). The
District Judge has referred this matter to the undersigned
Magistrate Judge for a report and recommendation. (DN 14.)
For the reasons below, the undersigned recommends that the
Commissioner's decision be AFFIRMED.
filed an application for DIB on August 23, 2013. (DN 13-5,
PageID # 212.) The claim was denied initially on December 19,
2013, and upon reconsideration on April 24, 2014. (DN 13-4,
PageID # 157, 162.) On March 25, 2016, Administrative Law
Judge Patrick B. Kimberlin III (the “ALJ”)
conducted a hearing on Wheeler's application. (DN 13-2
PageID # 98.) The ALJ then issued an unfavorable decision on
May 4, 2016. (DN 13-2, PageID # 77.) In his written opinion,
the ALJ made the following findings.
1. The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the
Social Security Act through December 31, 2017.
2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since July 15, 2012, the alleged onset date (20
C.F.R. 404.1571 et seq.).
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments:
fibromyalgia, migraine headaches, and major depressive
disorder (20 C.F.R. 404.1520(c)).
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 (20 C.F.R. 404.1520(d), 404.1525 and 404.1526).
5. . . . [T]he claimant has the residual functional capacity
to perform sedentary work as defined in 20 C.F.R. 404.1567(a)
except that she can perform frequent but not constant
handling, fingering, and feeling for both fine and gross
manipulation; she cannot climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds;
she can occasionally perform all other postural activities;
she should have no exposure to hazards, no work on uneven
surfaces, and no outdoor work with exposure to sunlight. She
can understand, remember, and carry out simple, routine job
duties and instructions. She can engage in occasional
work-related contact with coworkers and supervisors but
should have no contact with the general public.
6. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work
(20 C.F.R. 404.1565).
7. The claimant was born on June 19, 1984 and was 28 years
old, which is defined as a younger individual age 18-44, on
the alleged disability onset date (20 C.F.R. 404.1563).
8. The claimant has at least a high school education and is
able to communicate in English (20 C.F.R. 404.1564).
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 rod
not the claimant has transferable job skills (See SSR 82-41
and 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2).
10. Considering the claimant's age, education, work
experience, and residual functional capacity, there are jobs
that exist in significant numbers in the national economy
that the claimant can perform (20 C.F.R. 404.1569 and
11. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined
in the Social Security Act, from July 15, 2012, through the
date of this ...