United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fort Smith Division
JOEL E. NEWMAN PLAINTIFF
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, [1] Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
HON.
ERIN L. WIEDEMANN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff,
Joel Newman, 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 claims for a period of disability
and disability insurance benefits (DIB) and supplemental
security income (SSI) 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. §
405(g).
Plaintiff
protectively filed his current applications for DIB and SSI
on September 22, 2015, alleging an inability to work since
May 3, 2013, due to testicular cancer in lymph nodes that was
in remission, emphysema, chronic obstructive pulmonary
disorder (COPD), and nerve damage. (Tr. 108, 114, 122, 138).
For DIB purposes, Plaintiff maintained insured status through
December 31, 2018. (Tr. 60, 108, 114, 122, 138). An
administrative video hearing was held on July 26, 2016, at
which Plaintiff and a vocational expert testified. (Tr.
73-105).
By
written decision dated November 29, 2016, the ALJ found that
during the relevant time period, Plaintiff had severe
impairments of testicular cancer, status post-surgical
intervention and chemotherapy; peripheral neuropathy; chronic
obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD); and major depression.
(Tr. 60). 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. 61). The ALJ found that
Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to
perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and
416.967(b), except for the following: Plaintiff should
perform jobs in a controlled environment which did not risk
exposure to dust, fumes, smoke in concentrated amounts, or
temperature extremes; Plaintiff should perform only simple
tasks and simple instructions; and Plaintiff should have
incidental contact with the public. (Tr. 63). With the help
of a vocational expert (VE), the ALJ determined that although
Plaintiff was unable to perform his past relevant work, there
were jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national
economy that Plaintiff could perform, such as a power screw
driver operator, a can filling and closing machine tender,
and a compression molding machine tender. (Tr. 67). The ALJ
concluded that the Plaintiff had not been under a disability,
as defined in the Social Security Act, from May 3, 2013,
through the date of the decision. (Tr. 68).
Plaintiff
then requested a review of the hearing decision by the
Appeals Council, which after considering additional evidence
submitted by Plaintiff, denied that request on December 22,
2017.[2] (Tr. 1-6). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed
this action. (Doc. 1). This case is before the undersigned
pursuant to the consent of the parties. (Doc. 7). Both
parties have filed appeal briefs, and the case is now ready
for decision. (Docs. 12, 13).
This
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).
The
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).
IT IS
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED
---------
Notes:
[1] 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
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
[2] With respect to the additional
evidence from the relevant time period that was submitted to
the Appeals Council, the Appeals Council made the following
determination, “We find this evidence does not show a
reasonable probability that it would change the outcome of
the decision. We did not consider and exhibit this
evidence.” The Court notes that, here, as the Court
found in Benoit v. Berryhill, although the Appeals
Council denied Plaintiff's request for review and
indicated that it did not consider or exhibit the evidence,
the Appeals Council's decision reflects that the Appeals
Council received the additional records; that it reviewed
these records; ...