United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
JEFFREY W. POPE PLAINTIFF
ANDREW M. SAUL,  Commissioner, Social Security Administration DEFENDANT
ERIN L. WIEDEMANN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Jeffrey Pope, 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) 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. §
protectively filed his current applications for DIB and SSI
on May 21, 2015, and May 28, 2015, respectively, alleging an
inability to work since November 12, 2014, due to major
depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, diabetic, neuropathy
in toes from diabetes, hypertension, and slight curvature of
the spine. (Tr. 69, 81, 95, 108). For DIB purposes, Plaintiff
maintained insured status through December 31, 2018. (Tr. 69,
81, 95, 108). An administrative hearing was held on August
21, 2017, at which Plaintiff and a vocational expert
testified. (Tr. 37-66).
written decision dated November 1, 2017, the ALJ found that
during the relevant time period, Plaintiff had severe
impairments of depression, social anxiety, and
obsessive-compulsive disorder. (Tr. 16). 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. 18-20). 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
[Plaintiff] is able to perform simple, routine &
repetitive tasks, with regular breaks every 2 hours. His job
should not involve over-the-shoulder type supervision. He is
able to interact with supervisors as needed to receive work
instructions. The [Plaintiff] is able to work in proximity to
co-workers but should have no more than occasional direct
work interaction with co-workers. He should never interact
with the general-public. The job should not involve more than
ordinary and routine changes in work setting or work duties.
(Tr. 20). With the help of a vocational expert (VE), the ALJ
determined that although Plaintiff was unable to perform his
past relevant work, there were jobs that existed in
significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff
could perform, such as a conveyor feeder offbearer, a floor
waxer, and an industrial sweeper cleaner. (Tr. 30). The ALJ
concluded that the Plaintiff had not been under a disability,
as defined in the Social Security Act, from November 12,
2014, through the date of the decision. (Tr. 30).
Plaintiff requested a review of the hearing decision by the
Appeals Council, and that request was denied on June 11,
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).
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.
 Andrew M. Saul, has been appointed to
serve as Commissioner of Social Security, and is substituted
as Defendant, pursuant to Rule 25(d)(1) of the Federal ...