United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
MICHAEL R. WOMACK PLAINTIFF
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,  Commissioner Social Security Administration DEFENDANT
ERIN L. WIEDEMANN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Michael R. Womack, 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
December 19, 2014, alleging an inability to work since
January 15, 2014, due to homelessness, unemployment,
gastroesophageal reflux disease, posttraumatic stress
disorder, essential hypertension, alcohol dependence, alcohol
intoxication, a borderline personality disorder, seizures,
left shoulder problems and comprehension problems. (Tr.
69-70, 166). An administrative hearing was held on October
22, 2015, at which Plaintiff appeared with counsel and
testified. (Tr. 27-67).
written decision dated June 22, 2016, the ALJ found Plaintiff
was not disabled prior to March 26, 2016, but that Plaintiff
became disabled on March 26, 2016, and remained disabled
through the date of the decision. (Tr. 11). Specifically, the
ALJ found that since January 15, 2014, Plaintiff had the
following severe impairments: mild scoliosis and mild to
moderate degenerative joint disease/degenerative disc disease
of the lumbar spine and degenerative disc disease of the
cervical spine; left shoulder tendinosis and labral tear;
obesity; history of seizure; major depressive
disorder/unspecified depressive disorder; post-traumatic
stress disorder; unspecified anxiety disorder; borderline
personality disorder/cluster B personality traits; and a
history of alcohol abuse/dependence. (Tr. 13). However, after
reviewing all of the evidence presented, the ALJ determined
that since January 15, 2014, 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. 13-14). The ALJ found that
since January 15, 2014, Plaintiff retained the residual
functional capacity (RFC) to:
perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) except he
can occasionally climb ramps and stairs, he can never climb
ladders/ropes/scaffolds, and he can occasionally balance,
stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl. He can do no overhead work
or overhead reaching. He must avoid concentrated exposure to
hazards including no driving as part of work. He can have
only incidental interpersonal contact with coworkers and
supervisor and no contact with the public. Work tasks must be
no more complex than those learned and performed by rote,
with few variables and little use of judgment, and required
supervision must be simple, direct and concrete.
(Tr. 16). With the help of a vocational expert, the ALJ found
Plaintiff was not disabled prior to March 26, 2016, as he was
able to perform work as a scaling machine operator, a
blending tank tender, and a cotton classer aide. (Tr. 20).
then requested a review of the hearing decision by the
Appeals Council, which denied that request on August 6, 2016.
(Tr. 1-3). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed this action. (Doc.
1). This case is before the undersigned pursuant to the
consent of the parties. (Doc. 7). Both parties have filed
appeal briefs, and the case is now ready for decision. (Doc.
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