United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
ERIN L. WIEDEMANN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Jennifer Ann Robinette, 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. §
protectively filed her current applications for DIB and SSI
on October 21, 2014, alleging an inability to work since
February 1, 2014,  due to chronic pain, scoliosis,
depression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and
attention deficit disorder (ADD). (Tr. 63, 70, 79, 87). For
DIB purposes, Plaintiff maintained insured status through
December 31, 2016. (Tr. 63, 70, 79, 87). An administrative
hearing was held on January 25, 2016, at which Plaintiff and
a vocational expert testified. (Tr. 40-60).
written decision dated June 13, 2016, the ALJ found that
during the relevant time period, Plaintiff had severe
impairments of fibromyositis, scoliosis, panic disorder with
agoraphobia, anxiety disorder, attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder, and depressive disorder. (Tr. 23).
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. 24). 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] can frequently climb, balance, crawl, kneel,
stoop, crouch, finger and handle bilaterally, and reach
bilaterally. [Plaintiff] can perform simple, routine,
repetitive tasks in a setting where interpersonal contact is
incidental to the work performed. She can respond to usual
work situations; routine work changes; and supervision that
is simple, direct, and concrete.
(Tr. 25). 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 a marking clerk, a routing clerk, and
a shelving clerk. (Tr. 31-32). The ALJ concluded that the
Plaintiff had not been under a disability, as defined in the
Social Security Act, from February 1, 2014, through the date
of the decision. (Tr. 32).
then requested a review of the hearing decision by the
Appeals Council, but the request was denied on June 14, 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. 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).
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.
 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.
 At the January 25, 2016, hearing
before the ALJ, Plaintiff amended her alleged onset date from
July 15, 2011, to ...