United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Harrison Division
ERIN L. WIEDEMANN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Jesse Curtis Rogers 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 a 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 August
14, 2013, alleging an inability to work since May 28, 2013,
due to shoulder pain, back pain, a burn injury, depression,
ADD (attention deficit disorder), joint pain, high
cholesterol, high blood pressure, PTSD (posttraumatic stress
disorder), and anxiety. (Tr. 107-108, 187). An administrative
hearing was held on August 28, 2014, at which Plaintiff
appeared with counsel and testified. (Tr. 49-105). A
vocational expert and Plaintiff's wife also testified at
written decision dated May 29, 2015, the ALJ found that
during the relevant time period, Plaintiff had an impairment
or combination of impairments that were severe. (Tr. 32).
Specifically, the ALJ found Plaintiff had the following
severe impairments: osteoarthritis/degenerative disc disease
of the lumbar and cervical spine; mild obesity; history of
right clavicle fracture; hypertension; history of burns to
the upper body; history of hernia and small bowel obstruction
surgery; history of syncope; depression; generalized anxiety
with panic attacks; and PTSD. However, after reviewing all of
the evidence presented, the ALJ determined that
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. 33). The ALJ found Plaintiff retained the residual
functional capacity (RFC) to:
perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) except he
must avoid concentrated exposure to extreme heat and must
avoid any work that involves exposure to direct sunlight. He
must also avoid concentrated exposure to hazards including no
driving as part of work. In addition, the claimant is capable
of work where interpersonal contact is incidental to the work
performed, the complexity of tasks is learned and performed
by rote, with few variables and little use of judgment, and
the supervision required is simple, direct and concrete.
(Tr. 35). With the help of a vocational expert, the ALJ
determined Plaintiff could perform work as a machine tender,
an inspector, and a price marker. (Tr. 42).
then requested a review of the hearing decision by the
Appeals Council, which after reviewing additional evidence
submitted by Plaintiff, denied that request on June 22, 2016.
(Tr. 1-4). 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