United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
ERIN L. WIEDEMANN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Beverly Kinnaman, 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 July 31, 2014, alleging an inability to work since
November 3, 2012, due to “colon, diverticulitis,
irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), depression, vertigo, anxiety,
and lung problems.” (Tr. 66-67, 80-81, 96-97, 110-111).
For DIB purposes, Plaintiff maintained insured status through
December 31, 2014. (Tr. 66, 96). An administrative video
hearing was held on July 29, 2015, at which Plaintiff and a
vocational expert testified. (Tr. 38-63).
written decision dated September 18, 2015, the ALJ found that
during the relevant time periods, Plaintiff had a severe
impairments of: Musculoskeletal Disorder (other and
unspecified arthropathies, knee pain); Digestive Disorder
(other disorders of the gastrointestinal system, post colon
resection in 2009 and laparoscopic lysis of adhesions and
resection of the low rectal anastomotic stricture with
coloproctostomy in 2014); Respiratory Disorder (asthma); and
Mental Disorders (mood/affective disorders, depression,
anxiety). (Tr. 22). 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. 23). The ALJ
found that Plaintiff retained the residual functional
capacity (RFC) to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR
404.1567(b) and 416.967(b), except as follows:
claimant can frequently lift and/or carry ten pounds, and
occasionally twenty 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 six hours in an eight hour workday. The claimant must work
in a controlled environment with no dust or fumes in
concentrated amounts or temperature extremes. The claimant
can perform work consisting of simple tasks requiring simple
instructions with only incidental contact with the public.
(Tr. 25-28). With the help of a vocational expert (VE), the
ALJ determined that Plaintiff was capable of performing past
relevant work as a deli cutter slicer and a
cleaner/housekeeper. (Tr. 28).
then requested a review of the hearing decision by the
Appeals Council, which denied that request on September 26,
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. 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 this 12th day of March, 2018.
 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