United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division, Frankfort
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
R. WILHOIT JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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. 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 her current application for disability insurance
benefits in October 2014, alleging disability beginning in
August 2011, due to neuropathy, degenerative disc disease,
advanced degenerative arthritis spine, depression, anxiety,
acid reflux, obesity, insomnia, spinal fusion and
decompression L2-L3, falls, and off balance with gait
ambulates with quad cane.
application was denied initially and on reconsideration.
Thereafter, upon request by Plaintiff, an administrative
hearing was conducted by Administrative Law Judge Roger
Reynolds (hereinafter "ALJ"), wherein Plaintiff,
accompanied by counsel, testified. At the hearing, Laura
Lykins, a vocational expert (hereinafter "VE"),
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 impairments) 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.
Plaintiff was 47 years old at the time of the hearing
decision. She has a high school education. Her past relevant
work experience consists of work as a factory assembly
1, the ALJ found that Plaintiff has not engaged in
substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date. T
15. At Step 2, the ALJ found Plaintiff suffered from the
following severe impairments: chronic low back and left leg
pain status/post spinal fusion and decompression at the L2 to
L3 level; degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine,
status/ post excision of neural cyst; Hashimoto's
thyroiditis; status/post left knee surgery; osteoarthritis in
multiple joints; anxiety disorder; depression disorder;
obesity; and fibromyalgia. T 15. At Step 3, the ALJ found
that Plaintiff does not have an impairment or combination or
impairments that meets or equals one listed at 20 C.F.R. Part
404, Subpart P, App'x 1. T 16-17.
further found that Plaintiff could not return to her past
relevant work but determined that she has the residual
functional capacity ("RFC") to perform ...