United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
ERIN L. WIEDEMANN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Samantha Morano, 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 March 25, 2013, alleging an inability to work since July
30, 2013,  due to bursitis in her legs, congestive
heart failure, lupus, numbness in her arms, and high blood
pressure. (Tr. 142, 154, 168, 180). For DIB purposes,
Plaintiff maintained insured status through March 31, 2014.
(Tr. 142, 168). An administrative hearing was held on June
23, 2014, at which Plaintiff and a vocational expert
testified. (Tr. 83-114). The ALJ issued a written opinion on
September 30, 2014, where he found that Plaintiff had not
been under a disability within the meaning of the Social
Security Act. (Tr. 206). Plaintiff subsequently appealed the
decision to the Appeals Council, who remanded the case back
to the ALJ on January 29, 2016. (Tr. 212-216). A second
administrative hearing was held on August 25, 2016, and
Plaintiff and a vocational expert testified. (Tr. 117-139).
written decision dated February 17, 2017, the ALJ found that
during the relevant time period, Plaintiff had severe
impairments of asthma, hypertension, right arm numbness,
obesity, history of congestive heart failure, and affective
disorder. (Tr. 18). 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. 19-21). The ALJ
found that Plaintiff retained the residual functional
capacity (RFC) to perform sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR
§§ 404.1567(a) and 416.967(a), except for the
[Plaintiff] requires a cane to ambulate; she must avoid
moderate exposure to pulmonary irritants such as dusts,
odors, and gases; she can occasionally do overhead work
bilaterally; she can frequently finger and handle
bilaterally; and she is limited to performing simple,
routine, and repetitive tasks in a setting where
interpersonal contact is incidental to the work performed.
Lastly, the [Plaintiff] can respond to supervision that is
simple, direct, and concrete.
(Tr. 21). With the help of a vocational expert (VE), the ALJ
determined that although Plaintiff was unable to perform her
past relevant work as an overnight stocker, a short order
cook, a cashier II, and a forklift driver, there were other
jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national
economy that Plaintiff could perform, such as a document
preparer and a vehicle escort driver. (Tr. 29). The ALJ
concluded that the Plaintiff had not been under a disability,
as defined in the Social Security Act, from July 30, 2013,
through the date of the decision. (Tr. 29).
then requested a review of the hearing decision by the
Appeals Council, but the request was denied on November 6,
2017. (Tr. 1-6). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed this action.
(Doc. 1). This case is before the undersigned pursuant to the
consent of the parties. (Doc. 6). 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 this 15th day of August, 2019.
 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 Rules
of Civil Procedure.
 At the August 25, 2016 hearing, a
second hearing before the ALJ, Plaintiff amended her alleged
onset date to July 30, ...