United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
ERIN L. WIEDEMANN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Michael Bosley, 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 claim for supplemental security
income (SSI) under the provisions of Title 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).
protectively filed his current application for SSI on
September 13, 2012, alleging an inability to work since
December 31, 2005, due to arthritis, asthma, carpal tunnel
syndrome, nerve damage, joint pain, high blood pressure, and
high cholesterol. (Tr. 83, 100). An administrative hearing
was held on September 27, 2013, at which Plaintiff and a
vocational expert testified. (Tr. 43-64). The ALJ issued a
written opinion dated March 6, 2014, where he found that the
Plaintiff had not been under a disability within the meaning
of the Social Security Act. (Tr. 130). Plaintiff subsequently
appealed the decision to the Appeals Council, who remanded
the case back to the ALJ on August 12, 2015. (Tr. 136-141). A
second administrative hearing was held on November 5, 2015,
and Plaintiff and a Vocational expert testified. (Tr. 65-81).
written decision dated March 16, 2016, the ALJ found that
during the relevant time period, Plaintiff had severe
impairments of affective disorder, borderline intellectual
functioning, substance abuse disorder, personality disorder,
carpal tunnel syndrome, and back pain. (Tr. 13). However,
after reviewing all of the evidence presented, the ALJ
determined that Plaintiff's impairments 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. 14-16). 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:
[Claimant] cannot perform rapid, repetitive wrist actin on a
bilateral basis. The claimant is limited to work where
interpersonal contact is incidental to the work performed;
where the tasks are learned by rote, with few variables, and
little judgment. Moreover, the supervision required should be
simple, direct, and concrete.
(Tr. 16). With the help of a vocational expert (VE), the ALJ
determined that Plaintiff did not have any past relevant
work. (Tr. 22). However, there were jobs that existed in
significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff
could perform, such as an office helper, a content
inspector/content checker, and a bottle line attendant. (Tr.
23). The ALJ concluded that the Plaintiff had not been under
a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from
September 13, 2012, through the date of the decision. (Tr.
Plaintiff requested a review of the hearing decision by the
Appeals Council, and that request was denied on June 30,
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. 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