United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Southern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
B, WILHOIT. JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
has brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Â§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 October 27, 2014, alleging disability beginning
on November 2, 2012, due to physical and mental impairments
(Tr. 223). She amended the date of alleged onset to April 21,
2016, the date after a prior unfavorable administrative
decision (Tr. 211, 307).
instant application was denied initially and on
reconsideration. Thereafter, upon request by Plaintiff, an
administrative hearing was conducted by Administrative Law
Judge Susan Brock (hereinafter "ALJ"). At the
hearing, Linda Jones, a vocational expert (hereinafter
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 44 years old at the time she alleges she became
disabled. She has a high school education and her past
relevant work experience consists of work as an office
helper, file clerk, general clerk and cook's helper (Tr.
1 of the sequential analysis, the ALJ found that Plaintiff
had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the
alleged onset date of disability, April 21, 2016, through her
date last insured, December 31, 2017.
then determined, at Step 2, that Plaintiff suffers from
fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis of the right knee, shoulder
bursitis, cervical and thoracic degenerative disc disease and
anxiety, which he found ...