United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Harrison Division
TERRY L. BELL PLAINTIFF
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Commissioner Social Security Administration DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
HON.
ERIN L. WIEDEMANN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff,
Terry L. Bell, 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 claims for a period of disability
and disability insurance benefits (DIB) and supplemental
security income (SSI) benefits under the provisions of Title
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 his current applications for DIB and SSI
on November 10, 2014, alleging an inability to work since
August 15, 2011, [1] due to a head injury, inability to stay
focused, a neck injury, headaches, multiple back injuries, a
bent spine, titanium in the right leg from the knee down,
feet problems, umbilical hernia, pain in the lower back,
carpal tunnel in both hands, ulnar nerve problems, pain in
back and nerves, legs give out and a touch of COPD. (Tr. 188,
317, 325). For DIB purposes, Plaintiff maintained insured
status through September 30, 2014. (Tr. 85, 329). An
administrative hearing was held on December 17, 2015, at
which Plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified. (Tr.
105-163).
By
written decision dated April 19, 2017, the ALJ found that
during the relevant time period, plaintiff had an impairment
or combination of impairments that were severe. (Tr. 87).
Specifically, the ALJ found Plaintiff had the following
severe impairments: degenerative disc disease of the cervical
and lumbar spine, mild chronic bilateral carpal tunnel
syndrome, mild chronic right ulnar neuropathy at the elbow,
mild bilateral C5-C6 and C6-C7 cervical radiculopathies,
obesity, asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD),
a history of hernia surgery, left subcutaneous mastectomy,
bilateral upper extremity surgeries and a personality
disorder. 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. 88). The ALJ
found Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity
(RFC) to:
perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and
416.967(b) except he can occasionally climb ramps/stairs; he
can never climb ladders/ropes/scaffolds; he can occasionally
balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl; he can occasionally
reach, handle and finger bilaterally; and he must avoid
concentrated exposure to temperature extremes, humidity,
wetness, fumes, odors, dusts, gases, poor ventilation,
hazards, and driving as a part of work. He is further capable
of work where interpersonal contact is only incidental to the
work performed, the complexity of tasks is learned and
performed by rote, with few variables and little use of
judgment, and the supervision required is simple, direct and
concrete.
(Tr. 89). With the help of a vocational expert, the ALJ
determined Plaintiff could perform work as a sandwich-board
carrier, a cotton classer aide a dealer accounts
investigator. (Tr. 97, 470).
Plaintiff
then requested a review of the hearing decision by the
Appeals Council, which denied that request on December 22,
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.
13, 14).
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).
---------
Notes:
[1] At the administrative hearing before
the ALJ on December 17, 2015, Plaintiff's alleged onset
date was amended to June ...