United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
ERIN L. WIEDEMANN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Jennifer Rizzo, 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) 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
September 4, 2015, alleging an inability to work since May 8,
2015, due to a remote closed head injury, major depression
recurrent without psychotic features, and generalized anxiety
disorder. (Tr. 73, 88). For DIB purposes, Plaintiff
maintained insured status through March 31, 2019. (Tr. 15,
38). An administrative hearing was held on September 7, 2016,
at which Plaintiff and a vocational expert testified. (Tr.
written decision dated October 18, 2016, the ALJ found that
during the relevant time period, Plaintiff had severe
impairments of migraine headaches, obesity, obstructive sleep
apnea, remote 1994 head injury, posttraumatic stress disorder
(PTSD), anxiety and depressive disorder. (Tr. 15). 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. 16). The ALJ found that Plaintiff
retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform
light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b), except for the
[Plaintiff] cannot [climb] ladders, ropes, or scaffolds and
cannot engage in commercial driving. She can understand,
remember, and carry out simple instructions and tasks but
cannot meet fast paced production requirements and cannot
perform production rate pace work such as assembly line work.
The claimant can only make simple work-related decisions with
few, if any, workplace changes or changes in routine. She can
do jobs that involve working with the same types of things on
a day-to-day basis.
(Tr. 19-27). With the help of a vocational expert (VE), the
ALJ determined that while Plaintiff was unable to perform her
past relevant work, there were jobs that existed in the
economy that she could perform, such as an office helper,
shipping weigher, and a gasket check or gasket inspector.
(Tr. 28). The ALJ concluded that the Plaintiff had not been
under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act,
from May 8, 2015, through the date of the decision. (Tr.28).
then requested a review of the hearing decision by the
Appeals Council, and the request was denied on August 29,
2017. (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).
 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