United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
ERIN L. WIEDEMANN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Willard Lee Chinn, 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 his claims for period of disability
and disability insurance benefits (DIB) under the provisions
of Title II 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.
protectively filed his current application for DIB on
November 25, 2013, alleging an inability to work since
October 12, 2012,  due to neuropathy, his right knee, his
back, and his right arm. (Tr. 132). For DIB purposes,
Plaintiff maintained insured status through March 31, 2015.
(Tr. 12, 293). An administrative hearing was held on June 23,
2015, at which Plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified.
(Tr. 54-73). A supplemental hearing was held on February 4,
2016. (Tr. 42-53).
written decision dated April 21, 2016, the ALJ found that
during the relevant time period, Plaintiff had an impairment
or combination of impairments that were severe. (Tr. 14).
Specifically, the ALJ found that through the date last
insured Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: mild
right knee osteoarthritis, chronic back pain, peripheral
neuropathy, radiculopathy, hypertension and antisocial
personality disorder. However, after reviewing all of the
evidence presented, the ALJ determined that through the date
last insured Plaintiff's 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. (Tr. 15). The ALJ found that through the
date last insured, Plaintiff retained the residual functional
capacity (RFC) to:
perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) except
the claimant can occasionally push and/or pull with his right
lower extremity. He can occasionally climb ramps and stairs
but never climb ladders, ropes of (sic) scaffolds. He can
occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, crouch and crawl. The
claimant must avoid dangerous moving machinery and
unprotected heights. He can perform work that is limited to
simple, routine, repetitive tasks involving only simple,
work-related decisions, with few, if any, workplace changes
and no more than incidental contact with co-workers,
supervisors and the general public.
(Tr. 17). With the help of a vocational expert, the ALJ
determined that through the date last insured Plaintiff could
perform work as an air purifier servicer, an accounts
representative, and a merchandise marker. (Tr. 29).
then requested a review of the hearing decision by the
Appeals Council, which denied that request on August 22,
2016. (Tr.1-5). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed this action.
(Doc. 1). This case is before the undersigned pursuant to the
consent of the parties. (Doc. 6). Both parties have filed
appeal briefs, and the case is now ready for decision. (Docs.
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
Court has reviewed the entire transcript and the parties'
briefs. For the reasons stated in the ALJ's well-reasoned
opinion and the Government's brief, the Court finds
Plaintiff's arguments on appeal to be without merit and
finds that the record as a whole reflects substantial
evidence to support the ALJ's decision. Accordingly, the
ALJ's decision is hereby summarily affirmed and
Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
See Sledge v. Astrue, No. 08-0089, 2008 WL 4816675
(W.D. Mo. Oct. 31, 2008) (summarily affirming ALJ's
denial of disability benefits), aff'd, 364
Fed.Appx. 307 (8th Cir. 2010).
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.
 Nancy A. Berryhill, has been appointed
to serve as acting Commissioner of Social Security, and is
substituted as Defendant, pursuant to Rule 25(d)(1) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
 The ALJ found Plaintiff amended his
alleged onset date to March 30, 2015, at the supplemental
hearing held on February 4, 2016. (Tr. 12). A review of the
hearing testimony failed to indicate that Plaintiff amended
his alleged onset date. (Tr. 42-75). The ALJ discussed all of
the relevant medical evidence and the Court does not find the
incorrect onset date listing impacted the decision in this
case. The Court would further point out that neither party
argued that the ALJ”s amended onset date was incorrect.
In the case currently before the Court, Plaintiff's onset