United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
ERIN L. WIEDEMANN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff, Nancy Fanez Moore, 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 March 27, 2014, alleging an inability to work since
September 22, 2012,  due to degenerative disc disease, stomach
problems, knee problems, and shoulder problems. (Tr. 57, 67,
77, 89). For DIB purposes, Plaintiff maintained insured
status through December 31, 2014. (Tr. 57, 67, 77, 89). An
administrative video hearing was held on December 16, 2014,
at which Plaintiff and a vocational expert testified. (Tr.
written decision dated July 31, 2015, the ALJ found that
during the relevant time periods, Plaintiff had severe
impairments of degenerative disc disease, rotator cuff
syndrome, knee problems, other and unspecified arthropathies.
(Tr. 16). 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. 17). 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:
[s]he is limited to frequently climbing ramps and stairs;
occasionally climbing ladders, ropes, and scaffolds;
frequently performing balancing, stooping, kneeling,
crouching, and crawling; and occasionally performing
bilateral reaching including overhead reaching.
(Tr. 17). With the help of a vocational expert, the ALJ
determined that while Plaintiff was unable to perform her
past relevant work, there were other jobs that existed in
significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff
could perform, such as a hotel/motel clerk and a gate guard.
then requested a review of the hearing decision by the
Appeals Council, which denied that request on August 16,
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 December 16, 2014, hearing
before the ALJ, Plaintiff amended her alleged onset date from
January 10, 2014, to September ...