A disability claimant's back injury case is sent back for proper medical review.

Record source: CourtListener

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION LONDON STACY LOU FLEMING, ) ) Plaintiff, ) No. 6:26-CV-53-HAI ) v. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION FRANK J. BISIGNANO, ) & ORDER Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) Defendant. ) ) *** *** *** *** In March 2023, Plaintiff Stacy Lou Fleming filed a Title XVI application for supplemental security income. See D.E. 11 at 24.1 She alleged disability beginning December 31, 2019, which onset date was later revised to March 20, 2023. Id. The Social Security Administration denied Fleming’s 2023 application initially and upon reconsideration. Id. Then, on November 21, 2024, Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) John Kooser conducted a telephonic administrative hearing. The ALJ heard testimony from Fleming (represented by attorneys Andrew Kirkendall and Brady Howell with Howell appearing at the hearing) and impartial vocational expert (“VE”) Joseph Goodman. Id. Fleming was found to not be disabled during the relevant period. Id. at 35. The Appeals Council denied review on October 21, 2025. Id. at 1. On December 22, 2025, Fleming (with different counsel) brought this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c) to obtain judicial review of the ALJ’s November 2024 decision denying her application for supplemental security income. The parties filed briefs, including a 1 Page-number references to the administrative record refer to the large black page numbers at the bottom of each page. Page-number references to the briefs refer to the blue page numbers generated by ECF. reply. D.E. 12, 16, 17. The parties consented to the referral of this matter to a magistrate judge. D.E. 9. The matter was referred to the undersigned to conduct all proceedings and order the entry of a final judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73. The Court, having reviewed the record and for the reasons stated herein, GRANTS Plaintiff’s request to remand these proceedings. I. The ALJ’s Decision Under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920, an ALJ conducts a five-step analysis to evaluate a disability claim.2 The ALJ followed these procedures in this case. At the first step, if a claimant is working at a substantial gainful activity, she is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). In this case, the ALJ found that Fleming had “not engaged in substantial gainful activity since March 20, 2023, the application and amended onset date (20 CFR 416.971 et seq.).” D.E. 11 at 27. At the second step, if a claimant does not have any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limit her physical or mental ability to do basic work activities, then she does not have a severe impairment and is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). In this case, the ALJ found Fleming had the severe impairments of “bipolar affective disorder, post- traumatic stress disorder, unspecified anxiety disorder, substance use disorder(s), residuals from a traumatic brain injury, spondylosis of the cervical spine, status post T4 compression fracture of 2 The Sixth Circuit summarized this process in Jones v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 336 F.3d 469 (6th Cir. 2003): To determine if a claimant is disabled within the meaning of the Act, the ALJ employs a five-step inquiry defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. Through step four, the claimant bears the burden of proving the existence and severity of limitations caused by her impairments and the fact that she is precluded from performing her past relevant work, but at step five of the inquiry . . . the burden shifts to the Commissioner to identify a significant number of jobs in the economy that accommodate the claimant’s residual functional capacity (determined at step four) and vocational profile. Id. at 474 (internal citations omitted). the thoracic spine, and mild kyphosis of the thoracic spine (20 CFR 416.920(c)).” D.E. 11 at 27. Fleming does not argue the ALJ should have identified additional severe impairments. This appeal concerns only Fleming’s physical limitations concerning her back. And she presents no arguments regarding any mental-health concerns. At the third step, if a claimant’s impairments meet or equal an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, then she is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). The ALJ found Fleming failed to meet this standard. D.E. 11 at 27. The ALJ considered several listings but found none of them satisfied in Fleming’s case. Id. Relevant to this appeal, the ALJ considered impairments under Listing 1.00 concerning the musculoskeletal system. Id. Fleming does not challenge this determination that she fails to meet or medically equal the criteria for any listing. If, as here, a claimant is found non-disabled at step three, the ALJ must determine the claimant’s Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”), which is her maximum ability to do physical and mental work activities on a sustained basis despite limitations from her impairments. The ALJ found: After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 416.967(b) involving no more than occasional climbing of stairs or inclines, balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching or crawling; no temperature extremes, excessive levels of wetness or humidity, or occupational hazards, such as unprotected heights, dangerous machinery, ropes, ladders or scaffolds; no more than simple, routine, repetitive tasks that would be performed in a low stress work environment, defined as one involving no high volume productivity requirements and very infrequent unexpected changes; and no more than occasional interaction with the public, co-workers or supervisors. D.E. 11 at 30. Fleming objects to this RFC finding on the basis that the ALJ “impermissibly determined Plaintiff’s physical limitations without the benefit of a medical opinion and should have ordered a consultative examination.” D.E. 12 at 5. She says the ALJ erred under the Deskin rule “because the ALJ made an RFC determination based on no medical source opinion whatsoever.” Id. at 8. At the fourth step, if a claimant’s impairments do not prevent her from doing past relevant work (given the ALJ’s assessment of the claimant’s residual functional capacity), she is not disabled. 20 C.F.R.

Official opinion source