United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
ERIN L. WIEDEMANN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Sonia Hulse, 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 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 her current application for SSI on October
29, 2014, alleging an inability to work since May 1, 2014,
due to anxiety, bipolar disorder, depression, psychotic
episodes, and hallucinations. (Tr. 68, 83-84). An
administrative hearing was held on January 22, 2016, at which
Plaintiff and a vocational expert testified. (Tr. 36-66).
written decision dated April 29, 2016, the ALJ found that
during the relevant time period, Plaintiff had severe
impairments of affective disorder, variously diagnosed as
bipolar disorder, depressive disorder, and depression NOS;
generalized anxiety disorder; insomnia; personality disorder
NOS with cluster B & C traits; and polysubstance
dependence in partial remission. (Tr. 19). 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. 20). The ALJ found that Plaintiff retained the residual
functional capacity (RFC) to perform a full range of work at
all exertional levels, but with the following non-exertional
limitations: Plaintiff can understand, remember and carry out
simple instructions and tasks, and Plaintiff can concentrate
on those tasks for extended periods of two or more hours at
once. (Tr. 21-27). With the help of a vocational expert (VE),
the ALJ determined that while Plaintiff did not have any past
relevant work, there were jobs that existed in significant
numbers in the economy that Plaintiff could perform, such as
a hand packager and an industrial cleaner. (Tr. 28).
Therefore, the ALJ concluded that the Plaintiff had not been
under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act,
since October 29, 2014, through the date of the decision.
then requested a review of the hearing decision by the
Appeals Council, which denied that request on June 27, 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