United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Harrison Division
JUNE E. MEAD PLAINTIFF
ANDREW M. SAUL,  Commissioner, Social Security Administration DEFENDANT
ERIN L. WIEDEMANN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
June E. Mead, 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 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 July
24, 2015, alleging an inability to work since July 23, 2015,
due to low back pain, pain down both legs, spams in her back,
depression, inability to sit for long periods of time,
inability to stand for long periods of time, inability to
walk for long periods of time, inability to concentrate due
to pain, and arthritis. (Tr. 53-54, 62-63). For DIB purposes,
Plaintiff maintained insured status through December 31,
2019. (Tr. 53, 62). An administrative hearing was held on
October 3, 2016, at which Plaintiff appeared and testified.
(Tr. 32-46). Jim Spraggins, vocational expert (VE), was also
present testified, as well as Steve Mead, Plaintiff's
husband. (Tr. 46-51).
written decision dated November 21, 2017, the ALJ found that
during the relevant time period, Plaintiff had severe
impairments of unspecified arthropathies and chronic back
pain. (Tr. 17-18). 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. 18-19). The ALJ
found that Plaintiff retained the residual functional
capacity (RFC) to perform a full range of light work as
defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b). (Tr. 19-21). With the help of
a vocational expert (VE), the ALJ determined that Plaintiff
was able to perform her past relevant work as a procurement
clerk. (Tr. 21). The ALJ concluded that the Plaintiff had not
been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security
Act, from July 23, 2015, the alleged onset date, through
November 21, 2017, the date of the decision. (Tr. 21).
then requested a review of the hearing decision by the
Appeals Council, and that request was denied on June 18,
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 ...