United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
ERIN L. WIEDEMANN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Necole Padgett, 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 December 10, 2014, alleging an inability to work since
December 10, 2014,  due to a learning disability, depression,
anxiety, irritable bowel syndrome, stress stomach, a pinched
nerve in her neck, and low back problems. (Tr. 72-73, 83-84,
97-98, 111-112). For DIB purposes, Plaintiff maintained
insured status through September 30, 2005. (Tr. 72, 97). An
administrative hearing was held on March 16, 2016, at which
Plaintiff and a vocational expert testified. (Tr. 36-69).
written decision dated June 2, 2016, the ALJ found that
during the relevant time period, Plaintiff had severe
impairments of subluxation of her left shoulder; degenerative
disc disease of her cervical spine/protruding disc at ¶
6-7; degenerative disc disease/facet syndrome of her lumbar
spine; anxiety; and depression. (Tr. 20). 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. 22). The ALJ found that Plaintiff retained the residual
functional capacity (RFC) to perform light work as defined in
20 CFR 416.967(b) except for the following: she was limited
to only occasional overhead reaching with her non-dominant
left hand and arm; she was limited to jobs involving simple
tasks and simple instructions; and she was limited to jobs
involving only incidental contact with the public. (Tr. 23).
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 apparel stock checker, a shipping weigher, and a
courier. (Tr. 29-30). The ALJ concluded that the Plaintiff
had not been under a disability, as defined in the Social
Security Act, from December 10, 2014, the amended onset date,
through the date of the decision. (Tr. 30).
then requested a review of the hearing decision by the
Appeals Council, but the request was denied on July 28, 2017.
(Tr. 1-7). 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.
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 March 16, 2016, hearing before
the ALJ, Plaintiff amended her alleged onset date from May 1,
2002, to December 10, 2014. (Tr. 41). Also, at the hearing,
once Plaintiff amended her alleged onset date, she was no
longer entitled to a period of disability and disability
insurance benefits, as her insurance status expired on
September 30, 2005. Therefore, Plaintiff voluntarily elected
to withdraw her request for a hearing as it ...