United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fort Smith Division
BRANDY D. CHEEKS-MATTHEWS PLAINTIFF
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,  Commissioner Social Security Administration DEFENDANT
ERIN L. WIEDEMANN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Brandy D. Cheeks-Matthews, brings this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a decision
of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
(Commissioner) denying her claims for supplemental security
income (SSI) benefits under the provisions of Title XVI of
the Social Security Act (Act). In this judicial review, the
Court must determine whether there is substantial evidence in
the administrative record to support the Commissioner's
decision. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
protectively filed her current application for SSI on August
8, 2013, alleging an inability to work due to scoliosis,
migraines, a torn ACL in the left knee, and a right shoulder
problem. (Doc. 12, pp. 49, 126). An administrative hearing
was held on October 28, 2014, at which Plaintiff appeared
with counsel and testified. (Doc. 12, pp. 24-48).
written decision dated February 11, 2015, the ALJ found that
during the relevant time period, Plaintiff had an impairment
or combination of impairments that were severe. (Doc.12, p.
15). Specifically, the ALJ found Plaintiff had the following
severe impairments: a history of scoliosis, and left knee
arthroscopy for internal derangement. However, after
reviewing all of the evidence presented, the ALJ determined
that Plaintiffs impairments did not meet or equal the level
of severity of any impairment listed in the Listing of
Impairments found in Appendix I, Subpart P, Regulation No. 4.
(Doc. 12, p. 15). The ALJ found Plaintiff retained the
residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform a full range of
sedentary work as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 416.967(a). The
ALJ, with the use of the Medical-Vocational Guidelines
(Grids), found Plaintiff was not disabled. (Doc. 12, pp.
then requested a review of the hearing decision by the
Appeals Council, which denied that request on March 24, 2016.
(Doc. 12, pp. 5-7). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed this
action. (Doc. 1). This case is before the undersigned
pursuant to the consent of the parties. (Doc. 5). Both
parties have filed appeal briefs, and the case is now ready
for decision. (Docs. 13, 15).
Court has reviewed the entire transcript. The complete set of
facts and arguments are presented in the parties' briefs,
and are repeated here only to the extent necessary.
Court's role is to determine whether the
Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial
evidence on the record as a whole. Ramirez v.
Barnhart, 292 F.3d 576, 583 (8th Cir. 2002). Substantial
evidence is less than a preponderance but it is enough that a
reasonable mind would find it adequate to support the
Commissioner's decision. The ALJ's decision must be
affirmed if the record contains substantial evidence to
support it. Edwards v. Barnhart, 314 F.3d 964, 966
(8th Cir. 2003). As long as there is substantial evidence in
the record that supports the Commissioner's decision, the
Court may not reverse it simply because substantial evidence
exists in the record that would have supported a contrary
outcome, or because the Court would have decided the case
differently. Haley v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 742, 747
(8th Cir. 2001). In other words, if after reviewing the
record it is possible to draw two inconsistent positions from
the evidence and one of those positions represents the
findings of the ALJ, the decision of the ALJ must be
affirmed. Young v. Apfel 221 F.3d 1065, 1068 (8th
well-established that a claimant for Social Security
disability benefits has the burden of proving her disability
by establishing a physical or mental disability that has
lasted at least one year and that prevents her from engaging
in any substantial gainful activity. Pearsall v.
Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211, 1217 (8th Cir. 2001); see also
42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). The Act defines "physical
or mental impairment" as "an impairment that
results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological
abnormalities which are demonstrable by medically acceptable
clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques." 42
U.S.C. § 423(d)(3). A Plaintiff must show that her
disability, not simply her impairment, has lasted for at
least twelve consecutive months.
Commissioner's regulations require her to apply a
five-step sequential evaluation process to each claim for
disability benefits: (1) whether the claimant has engaged in
substantial gainful activity since filing her claim; (2)
whether the claimant has a severe physical and/or mental
impairment or combination of impairments; (3) whether the
impairment(s) meet or equal an impairment in the listings;
(4) whether the impairment(s) prevent the claimant from doing
past relevant work; and, (5) whether the claimant is able to
perform other work in the national economy given her age,
education, and experience. See 20 C.F.R. §
416.920. Only if the final stage is reached does the fact
finder consider the Plaintiffs age, education, and work
experience in light of her residual functional capacity.
See McCoy v. Schweiker, 683 F.2d 1138, 1141-42 (8th
Cir. 1982), abrogated on other grounds by Higgins v.
Apfel 222 F.3d 504, 505 (8th Cir. 2000); 20 C.F.R.
argues the following issues on appeal: 1) the ALJ failed to
address third-party assessments; 2) the ALJ failed to address
the opinion of Terry Hoyt; and 3) the ALJ erred in rejecting
Plaintiff's diagnoses of fibromyalgia and