United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
ERIN L. WIEDEMANN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Tammy Padgett, 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 claim 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 her current application for DIB on June
21, 2014, alleging an inability to work since January 1,
2015,  due to Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary
Disease (“COPD”), chronic depression, and pain in
her hips, knees and ankles. (Tr. 125, 136). For DIB purposes,
Plaintiff maintained insured status through December 31,
2018. (Tr. 125, 136).
administrative hearing was held on August 4, 2015, at which
Plaintiff and a vocational expert testified. (Tr. 74-123).
written decision dated October 28, 2015, the ALJ found that
during the relevant time period, Plaintiff had severe
impairments of COPD, obstructive sleep apnea, restless leg
syndrome, osteoarthritis, and obesity. (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. 18). The ALJ found that Plaintiff
retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform
sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(a), except that:
[C]laimant can occasionally climb ramps and stairs but can
never climb ladders, ropes, scaffolds. She can occasionally
balance, stoop, kneel, crouch and crawl. In addition, the
claimant must avoid concentrated exposure to temperature
extremes, humidity, fumes, odors, dusts, gases, poor
ventilation and hazards, including no driving as a part of
(Tr. 19). With the help of a vocational expert (VE), the ALJ
determined that Plaintiff was able to perform her past
relevant work as a clerical assistant/data entry clerk and
payroll clerk. (Tr. 24). Thus, the ALJ concluded that
Plaintiff was not disabled during the relevant time period of
January 1, 2015, the amended alleged onset date, through
October 28, 2015, the date of the ALJ's decision. (Tr.
then requested a review of the hearing decision by the
Appeals Council, which denied that request on November 8,
2016. (Tr. 1-5). 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