United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Bowling Green Division
KELLY R. ADAMS PLAINTIFF
ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
KING, MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's complaint
seeking judicial review, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g),
of the final decision of the Commissioner denying her claim
for Social Security disability benefits. The fact and law
summaries of Plaintiff and Defendant are at Dockets # 13 and
19. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the
undersigned Magistrate Judge to determine this case, with any
appeal lying before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
(Docket # 11.)
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found, among other things,
that Plaintiff's degenerative disc disease does not
satisfy the clinical criteria of Listing 1.04 of Appendix 1
of the regulations and that Plaintiff retains the ability to
perform a significant number of jobs in the national economy.
(Administrative Record (AR) at 18, 26.) Plaintiff argues that
these findings were not supported by substantial evidence in
the administrative record. (Docket # 13.)
Plaintiff's arguments are not persuasive and the
ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence, the
Court will AFFIRM the Commissioner's final decision and
DISMISS Plaintiff's complaint.
has not alleged sufficient facts to prove her degenerative
disc disease satisfies Listing 1.04.
1.04 provides that the following medical impairments are
Disorders of the spine (e.g., herniated nucleus
pulposus, spinal arachnoiditis, spinal stenosis,
osteoarthritis, degenerative disc disease, facet arthritis,
vertebral fracture), resulting in compromise of a nerve root
(including the cauda equina) or the spinal cord. With:
A. Evidence of nerve root compression characterized by
neuro-anatomic distribution of pain, limitation of motion of
the spine, motor loss (atrophy with associated muscle
weakness or muscle weakness) accompanied by sensory or reflex
loss and, if there is involvement of the lower back, positive
straight-leg raising test (sitting and supine); or
B. Spinal arachnoiditis, confirmed by an operative note or
pathology report of tissue biopsy, or by appropriate
medically acceptable imaging, manifested by severe burning or
painful dysesthesia, resulting in the need for changes in
position or posture more than once every 2 hours; or
C. Lumbar spinal stenosis resulting in pseudoclaudication,
established by findings on appropriate medically acceptable
imaging, manifested by chronic nonradicular pain and
weakness, and resulting in inability to ambulate effectively,
as defined in 1.00B2b.
1.04, regulations, Appendix 1.
found that there is a lack of evidence that Plaintiffs
degenerative disc disease satisfies Listing 1.04:
[T]he medical evidence does not establish the requisite
evidence of nerve root compression, spinal arachnoiditis or
lumbar spinal stenosis as required under Listing 1.04,
Disorders of the Spine. Moreover, there is no evidence that
the claimant's back disorder has resulted in an inability
to ambulate effectively, as defined in 1.00(B)(2)(b).
(AR at 18.) In other words, the ALJ found that Plaintiff does
not satisfy Listing 1.04A due to a lack of evidence of nerve
root compression; she does not satisfy Listing 1.04B due to
lack of evidence of spinal arachnoiditis; and she does not
satisfy Listing 1.04C due to lack of ...