United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Southern Division, Pikeville
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 an application for disability insurance benefits on
April 30, 2015, alleging disability beginning on February 26,
2015, due to "non diagnosed neurological disorder,
atypical macular degeneration, tachycardia, osteoporosis,
degenerative disc, bulging discs [and] facet
arthropathy" (Tr. 194). This application was denied
initially and on reconsideration. Thereafter, upon request by
Plaintiff, an administrative hearing was conducted by
Administrative Law Judge Boyce Crocker (hereinafter
"ALJ"), wherein Plaintiff, accompanied by counsel,
testified. At the hearing, Gina Baldwin, a vocational expert
(hereinafter "VE"), also testified.
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 impairment(s) 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 57 years old at the alleged date of onset of
disability. She has a high school education. Her past
relevant work experience consists of work as a family
resource coordinator / school social worker for the Pike
County Board of Education.
1 of the sequential analysis, the ALJ found that Plaintiff
had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the
alleged onset date of disability.
then determined, at Step 2, that Plaintiff suffers from
macular degeneration and dysfunction of a major joint (left
shoulder), which he found to be "severe" within the
meaning of the Regulations.
3, the ALJ found that Plaintiffs impairments did not meet or
medically equal any of the listed impairments. In doing so,
the ALJ specifically considered Listings 1.02 and 2.00 At
Step 4, the ALJ found that Plaintiff could perform her past
relevant work as a family resource coordinator / school
social worker. He further determined that she has the
residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform a
range of light work as defined in 20 C.F.R. §
404.1567(b) with certain additional restrictions (Tr. 16).
Specifically, Plaintiff could: lift, carry, push, and pull 20
pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently; perform
postural activities occasionally; ...