United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Harrison Division
ERIN L. WIEDEMANN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Robin Eric Lee, 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 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 his current application for DIB on August
5, 2015, alleging an inability to work since August 1, 2011,
due to degenerative osteoarthritis of the back, neck and
joints; spinal stenosis; vision damage of the right eye,
including blurred and double vision; nerve damage to the
right knee; ventricular tachycardia; sciatica; and high blood
pressure. (Tr. 189, 204-205). For DIB purposes, Plaintiff
maintained insured status through March 31, 2015 (but ALJ Op
says December 31, 2017???). (Tr. 159 (hearing where atty says
DLI was March 2015), 189, 204). An administrative video
hearing was held on October 4, 2016, at which Plaintiff and a
vocational expert testified. (Tr. 158-188).
written decision dated December 14, 2016, the ALJ found that
during the relevant time period, Plaintiff had severe
impairments of spine disorder, lumbar and cervical;
dysfunction of the major joints, bilateral upper extremity;
and obesity. (Tr. 124). 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. 125). The ALJ
found that Plaintiff retained the residual functional
capacity (RFC) to perform medium work as defined in 20 CFR
404.1567(c), except that Plaintiff could frequently handle
and finger bilaterally and frequently flex and rotate his
neck. (Tr. 125-128). While Plaintiff was unable to perform
any past relevant work, with the help of a vocational expert
(VE), the ALJ determined that there were jobs that existed in
significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff
could perform, such as salvage laborer, commercial cleaner,
and press operator. (Tr. 129).
then requested a review of the hearing decision by the
Appeals Council, which denied that request on April 18, 2017.
(Tr. 1-8). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed this action. (Doc.
1). This case is before the undersigned pursuant to the
consent of the parties. (Doc. 5). 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