United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
LAWANA M. HALE PLAINTIFF
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, [1] Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
HON.
ERIN L. WIEDEMANN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff,
Lawana Hale, 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) 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 her current applications for DIB and SSI
on August 22, 2014, alleging an inability to work since
November 1, 2014, [2] due to degenerative disc disease, chronic
pain, and a pinched nerve. (Tr. 88, 102, 118, 134). For DIB
purposes, Plaintiff maintained insured status through
September 30, 2015. (Tr. 88, 102, 118). An administrative
hearing was held on April 15, 2016, at which Plaintiff and a
vocational expert testified. (Tr. 63-85).
By
written decision dated July 20, 2016, the ALJ found that
during the relevant time period, Plaintiff had severe
impairments of degenerative disc disease, carpal tunnel
syndrome, obesity, and affective disorder. (Tr. 16). 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. 17). The ALJ found that Plaintiff
retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform
sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(a) and
416.967(a), except for the following:
The [Plaintiff] is limited to occasional climbing, balancing,
crawling, kneeling, stooping, and crouching. She is also
limited to frequent fingering and handling with the left
non[-]dominant upper extremity. She is further limited to
simple, routine, and repetitive tasks in a setting where
interpersonal contact is incidental to the work performed.
She can respond to supervision that is simple, direct, and
concrete.
(Tr. 19). With the help of a vocational expert (VE), the ALJ
determined that although Plaintiff was unable to perform her
past relevant work, there were jobs that existed in
significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff
could perform, such as an addresser, a stuffer, and an escort
vehicle driver. (Tr. 24-25). The ALJ concluded that the
Plaintiff had not been under a disability, as defined in the
Social Security Act, from November 1, 2014, through the date
of the decision. (Tr. 25).
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 July 14,
2017.[3] (Tr. 1-6). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed
this action. (Doc. 1). This case is before the undersigned
pursuant to the consent of the parties. (Doc. 9). Both
parties have filed appeal briefs, and the case is now ready
for decision. (Docs. 15, 16).
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
this 13th day of February 2019.
---------
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] At the April 15, 2016, hearing before
the ALJ, Plaintiff amended her alleged onset date from August
1, 2014 to November 1, 2014. (Tr. 64).
[3] 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; ...