United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fort Smith Division
ERIN L. WIEDEMANN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Betty Nelson, brings this action on behalf of her minor
granddaughter, J.N., seeking judicial review, pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 405(g), of a decision of the Commissioner of
the Social Security Administration (Commissioner) finding
J.N. is no longer entitled to disability benefits under the
provisions of Title XVI of the Social Security Act as of
February 1, 2015, due to medical improvement.
protectively filed the application for SSI on behalf of her
minor granddaughter J.N. on January 26, 2011. (Tr. 207). J.N.
was found to be disabled as of August 23, 2011. (Tr. 52).
Pursuant to the continuing disability review process, J.N.
was determined to no longer be disabled as of February 1,
2015. (Tr. 108-110, 126-149). Plaintiff appealed this
determination. An administrative hearing before the ALJ was
held on May 11, 2016, at which Plaintiff appeared with
counsel and testified. (Tr. 76-106). J.N. also testified at
written decision dated August 16, 2016, the ALJ indicated
that J.N. was found disabled as of August 23, 2011, which is
known as the “comparison point decision” or CPD.
(Tr. 55). At the time of the CPD, the ALJ found that J.N. had
the following medically determinable impairments: an anxiety
disorder and selective mutism. (Tr. 55). The ALJ found
Plaintiff was a school-aged child as of February 1, 2015.
(Tr. 57). The ALJ found since February 1, 2015, J.N. had the
following severe impairments: attention-deficit/hyperactivity
disorder (ADHD), combined type; attention deficit disorder
(ADD), inattentive type; oppositional defiant disorder;
adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and
conduct; and amaurosis of the left eye. (Tr. 61-62). However,
the ALJ further found that as J.N. did not have an impairment
or combination of impairments that was medically or
functionally equal to a listed impairment, J.N. was not
disabled. (Tr. 62-68).
then requested a review of the hearing decision by the
Appeals Council, which after reviewing additional evidence,
denied that request on January 10, 2018. (Tr. 1-7).
Subsequently, Plaintiff filed this action. (Doc. 1). Both
parties have filed appeal briefs, and this case is before the
undersigned pursuant to the consent of the parties. (Docs. 5,
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).
 The pleadings filed by Plaintiff's
counsel include the full name of a minor. The Administrative
Policies and Procedures Manual adopted by this Court states
that sensitive information in any document filed with the
Court should not be included unless such information is
necessary and relevant to the case. See Administrative
Policies and Procedures Manual for Civil and Criminal
Filings, at www.arwd.uscourts.gov. This
“sensitive information” includes the full name of
minors. The Clerk of the Court is directed to seal the
documents that contain the full name of the minor child.