United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington
DENISE E. JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF,
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, DEFENDANT.
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. 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 on May 15, 2015, alleging disability beginning on
October 1, 2014, due to longstanding, diffuse arthritis and
degenerative disc/joint disease. This application was denied
initially and on reconsideration. Thereafter, upon request by
Plaintiff, an administrative hearing was conducted by
Administrative Law Judge Greg Holsclaw (hereinafter
"ALJ"), wherein Plaintiff, accompanied by counsel,
testified. At the hearing, William Harpool, 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 born in 1963 and was 51 years old at the time
she alleges she became disabled. She has a high school
education. Her past relevant work experience consists of work
as a construction worker.
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
osteoarthritis / degeneration of the cervical and lumbar
spine, as well as the knees; dyslipidemia; hypertension and
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, which he found to be
"severe" within the meaning of the Regulations.
3, the ALJ found that Plaintiffs impairments did not meet or