United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Harrison Division
RUBY A. FOUST PLAINTIFF
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Commissioner Social Security Administration DEFENDANT
ERIN L. WIEDEMANN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Ruby A. Foust, 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) benefits 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 June 13, 2014, alleging an inability to work since May 30,
2012,  due to a back injury, sciatic nerve
damage, lumbosacral pain, degenerative disc disease and
treatment for fibromyalgia. (Tr. 75, 184, 191). For DIB
purposes, Plaintiff maintained insured status through
September 30, 2015. (Tr. 205). An administrative hearing was
held on December 9, 2015, at which Plaintiff appeared with
counsel and testified. (Tr. 32-72). After the hearing,
Plaintiff submitted additional medical records and underwent
written decision dated March 10, 2017, the ALJ found that
during the relevant time period, Plaintiff had an impairment
or combination of impairments that were severe. (Tr. 18).
Specifically, the ALJ found Plaintiff had the following
severe impairments: chronic low back pain secondary to lumbar
spine degenerative disc disease. 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. 20). The ALJ found Plaintiff retained the residual
functional capacity (RFC) to:
perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and
416.967(b). She can lift and carry 20 pounds occasionally and
10 pounds frequently. She can push and pull in these
limitations. She can stand and walk for 6 hours in an 8hour
workday, and sit for 6 hours in an 8-hour workday with normal
breaks. She can occasionally stoop and crouch.
(Tr. 21). With the help of a vocational expert, the ALJ
determined Plaintiff could perform work as a fast food
worker, a cashier II and a price marker. (Tr. 25).
then requested a review of the hearing decision by the
Appeals Council, which after reviewing additional evidence
submitted by Plaintiff, denied that request on November 17,
2017. (Tr. 1-6). 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 Cir. 2000).
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).
 Plaintiff, through her counsel,
amended her alleged onset date to June 15, 2010. (Tr. 15,