United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Southern Division, London
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
R. Wiihoit, 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 and
supplemental security income 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 widow's benefits,
disability insurance benefits and supplemental security
income benefits on September 11, 2014, alleging disability
beginning on June 30, 2014 due to osteo/rheumatoid arthritis;
degenerative disc disease, lumbar spine; left shoulder
degenerative joint disease; trochanteric bursitis,
bilaterally; migraine/cluster headaches; hypertension;
insulin dependent diabetes mellitus with peripheral
neuropathy and history of dizziness with vertigo. (Tr. pg.
application was denied initially and on reconsideration.
Thereafter, upon request by Plaintiff, an administrative
hearing was conducted by Administrative Law Judge Karen
Jackson (hereinafter "ALJ"). At the hearing, Betty
Hale, 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 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 born in 1958. She has a GED as well as an
associate's degree. Her past relevant work experience
consists of work as a teacher's aide, bus driver and
computer assistant / bus monitor.
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
osteo/rheumatoid arthritis; degenerative disc disease, lumbar
spine; left shoulder degenerative joint disease; trochanteric
bursitis, bilaterally; migraine/cluster headaches;
hypertension; insulin dependent diabetes mellitus with
peripheral neuropathy and history of dizziness ...