United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Harrison Division
LEMAN K. WYATT PLAINTIFF
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Commissioner Social Security Administration DEFENDANT
ERIN L. WIEDEMANN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Leman K. Wyatt, 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 child disability
insurance benefits (CDIB) and supplemental security income
(SSI) benefits 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. § 405(g).
protectively filed his current applications for CDIB and SSI
on November 19, 2015, alleging an inability to work since
January 1, 2011,  due to back pain, posttraumatic stress
disorder, scoliosis, anxiety, depression, and a chemical
imbalance. (Tr. 96, 256, 262). An administrative hearing was
held on February 10, 2017, at which Plaintiff appeared with
counsel and testified. (Tr. 47-92).
written decision dated June 15, 2017, the ALJ found Plaintiff
had not attained the age of 22 as of the amended alleged
onset date. (Tr. 17). The ALJ found Plaintiff had engaged in
substantial gainful activity during the period of April 2015.
(Tr. 17). The ALJ found there was a continuous 12-month
period during which Plaintiff did not engage in substantial
gainful activity. (Tr. 18). The ALJ found Plaintiff had the
following severe impairments: mild thoracic scoliosis; mild
lumbar degenerative disc disease; chronic pain syndrome; a
seizure disorder; posttraumatic stress disorder; generalized
anxiety disorder; major depressive disorder recurrent
moderate; and uncomplicated bereavement. (Tr. 18).
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. 18). 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 no hazards such as unprotected heights or
moving machinery; no climbing ladders, ropes, or scaffolds;
occasionally stoop, kneel, and crouch; never crawl; can
understand, remember, carry out simple and routine
instructions and tasks; can regulate emotions, control
behavior, and maintain wellbeing in a work setting with
simple tasks and instructions as long as there are no fast
paced production requirements so no production rate pace work
such as assembly line work; can learn, recall, and use simple
instructions and tasks that involve simple work related
decisions with few, if any workplace changes or changes in
routine; jobs that involve working with the same types of
things on a day to day basis; and can interact frequently
with supervisors and occasionally with coworkers, but
interaction with the public should be only incidental to the
work performed; should work with things rather than people.
(Tr. 19). With the help of a vocational expert, the ALJ
determined Plaintiff could perform work as a battery
inspector, a shipping weigher and a cooling machine operator.
then requested a review of the hearing decision by the
Appeals Council, which denied that request on January 19,
2018. (Tr. 1-6). 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).
 Plaintiff amended his alleged onset
date to November 26, 2014, the date of his eighteenth