United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Harrison Division
CAMMIE I. TURNER PLAINTIFF
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Commissioner Social Security Administration DEFENDANT
ERIN L. WIEDEMANN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Cammie I. Turner, 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) under the provisions
of Title II 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 application for DIB on May 6,
2015, alleging an inability to work since May 10, 2013,
to seizures, hearing problems, anxiety, panic attacks,
post-traumatic stress disorder, severe depression, irritable
bowel syndrome, diverticulitis, chronic asthma, knee
problems, cervical cancer stage 3, equilibrium problems,
gallbladder problems and suicidal attempts. (Tr. 90-91, 199,
213). For DIB purposes, Plaintiff maintained insured status
through December 31, 2015. (Tr. 14, 29). An administrative
hearing was held on March 16, 2017, at which Plaintiff
appeared with counsel and testified. (Tr. 23-66).
written decision dated July 3, 2017, the ALJ found that
during the relevant time period, Plaintiff had an impairment
or combination of impairments that were severe. (Tr. 14).
Specifically, the ALJ found that through the date last
insured Plaintiff had the following severe impairments:
sensorineural hearing loss (bilateral); major depression;
anxiety; posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD); and obesity.
However, after reviewing all of the evidence presented, the
ALJ determined that through the date last insured
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. 15). The ALJ found that through the date last insured
Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to:
perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) except as
follows: The claimant can perform work consisting of simple
tasks and simple instructions and incidental contact with the
(Tr. 17). With the help of a vocational expert, the ALJ
determined that through the date last insured Plaintiff could
perform work as an ampule sealer, an escort driver and a
fishing reel assembler. (Tr. 21).
then requested a review of the hearing decision by the
Appeals Council, which denied that request on January 24,
2018. (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).
 Due to a prior administrative
determination, Plaintiff's counsel requested
Plaintiff's amended alleged onset date be amended to ...