United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
R. WILHOIT 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 August 13, 2014, alleging disability beginning in
July 2014, due to spinal stenosis, neuroaminal stenosis,
degenerative disc disease and depression (Tr. 206). This
application was denied initially and on reconsideration.
Thereafter, upon request by Plaintiff, an administrative
hearing was conducted by Administrative Law Judge Jonathon
Stanley (hereinafter "ALJ"), wherein Plaintiff,
accompanied by counsel, testified. At the hearing, Denise
Cordes, 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 50 years old at the time she filed her
application. She completed once year of college and her past
relevant work experience consists of work as a cashier /
stacker at Wal-Mart, where she worked from 1995 until July
2014 (Tr. 207).
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
degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine with
cervicalgia; degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine
with neurogenic claudication, status-post laminectomy,
foraminotomy and discectomy x2; lumbar facet mediated pain
syndrome; status-post bilateral knew surgeries and obesity
which he found to be "severe" within the meaning of
3, the ALJ found that Plaintiffs impairments did not meet or