United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
ERIN L. WIEDEMANN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Misty Hooks, 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 a period of disability
and disability insurance benefits (DIB) and supplemental
security income (SSI) under the provisions of Titles II and
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. §
protectively filed her current applications for DIB and SSI
on May 29, 2014, alleging an inability to work since May 10,
2012,  due to depression, personality disorder,
anxiety, and obesity. (Tr. 119, 133, 147, 161). For DIB
purposes, Plaintiff maintained insured status through
December 31, 2013. (Tr. 119, 147). An administrative hearing
was held on May 20, 2015, and a supplemental hearing was held
on October 23, 2015. (Tr. 74-86, 89-117).Plaintiff and a
vocational expert testified at the hearings. (Tr. 74-86,
written decision dated December 3, 2015, the ALJ found that
during the relevant time periods, Plaintiff had a severe
impairments of: Musculoskeletal Disorder (lumbar degenerative
disc disease); Special/Other Disorder (obesity); and Mental
Disorders (mood/affective disorders, depression, anxiety).
(Tr. 27). However, after reviewing all of the evidence
presented, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff's impairment
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. 28). The ALJ found that
Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to
perform sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(a) and
416.967(a), except as follows:
claimant can frequently lift and/or carry less than ten
pounds, and occasionally ten pounds, push and/or pull within
the limits of lifting and carrying, sit for a total of six
hours in an eight hour workday, and stand and/or walk for a
total of two hours in an eight hour workday. The claimant is
limited to jobs involving simple tasks and simple
instructions with incidental contact with the general public.
(Tr. 30-35). With the help of a vocational expert (VE), the
ALJ determined that while Plaintiff was unable to perform any
of her past relevant work, there were jobs that existed in
significant numbers in the national economy that she could
perform, such as small products assembler and document
preparer. (Tr. 35-36). The ALJ concluded that Plaintiff had
not been under a disability, as defined by the Social
Security Act, from January 1, 2009, her alleged onset date,
through December 3, 2015, the date of the ALJ's decision.
then requested a review of the hearing decision by the
Appeals Council, which denied that request on August 24,
2016. (Tr. 1-6). 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. (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.
 At the May 20, 2015, hearing before
the ALJ, Plaintiff amended her alleged onset date from
January 1, 2009, to May ...