United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Harrison Division
VALERIE L. WEIS PLAINTIFF
ANDREW M. SAUL,  Commissioner, Social Security Administration DEFENDANT
ERIN L. WIEDEMANN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Valerie L. Weis, 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) 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 her current applications for DIB and SSI
on May 6, 2015, alleging an inability to work since May 3,
2015, due to Graves' disease, hypertension, depression,
anxiety, and sciatica. (Tr. 88, 99, 112, 126). For DIB
purposes, Plaintiff maintained insured status through
December 31, 2019. (Tr. 88, 99, 112, 126). An administrative
hearing was held on September 14, 2016, where Plaintiff and
her daughter, Donna Weis, testified. (Tr. 59-60, 63-79,
79-82). Jim Spragins, Vocational Expert (VE), also testified.
(Tr. 60-61, 82-84).
written decision dated November 28, 2017, the ALJ found that
during the relevant time period, Plaintiff had severe
impairments of thyroid disorder, degenerative disc disease of
the lumbar spine, degenerative joint disease, and a history
of vertigo. (Tr. 22). 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. 23). The ALJ
found that Plaintiff retained the residual functional
capacity (RFC) to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR
§§ 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b), except that she
could occasionally climb stairs and ramps, balance, stoop,
crouch, crawl, and kneel; must avoid hazards, including
unprotected heights and moving machinery; and must avoid
ropes, ladders, and scaffolds. (Tr. 23). With the help of a
vocational expert (VE), the ALJ determined that Plaintiff was
able to perform her past relevant work as a cashier-checker,
and alternatively, that there were also othe r j obs that
existed in significant numbers in the national economy that
Plaintiff could perform, such as a price marker, a production
assembler, and a router. (Tr. 30). The ALJ concluded that the
Plaintiff had not been under a disability, as defined in the
Social Security Act, from May 3, 2015, through the date of
the decision. (Tr. 30).
then requested a review of the hearing decision by the
Appeals Council, but the request was denied on May 29, 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. 5). 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).
 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 ...