United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fort Smith Division
DEBRA L. GIBSON PLAINTIFF
v.
ANDREW M. SAUL, [1] Commissioner, Social Security Administration DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
HON.
ERIN L. WIEDEMANN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff,
Debra L. Gibson, 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.
§ 405(g).
Plaintiff
protectively filed her current application for DIB on August
1, 2016, alleging an inability to work since January 1, 2014,
due to arthritis, a heart condition, COPD, and depression.
(Tr. 62-63, 78-79). For DIB purposes, Plaintiff maintained
insured status through September 30, 2016. (Tr. 62, 78). An
administrative hearing was held on November 1, 2017, at which
Plaintiff appeared and testified. (Tr. 31-53). Jim Spragins,
a vocational expert (VE), also testified. (Tr. 53-58).
By
written decision dated January 25, 2018, the ALJ found that
during the relevant time period, Plaintiff had severe
impairments of degenerative disc disease and chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). (Tr. 17). 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. 19). The ALJ found that Plaintiff
retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform
sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(a), except that
Plaintiff could only occasionally climb, balance, crawl,
kneel, stoop and crouch; could occasionally reach overhead
bilaterally; and must avoid moderate exposure to pulmonary
irritants, such as dusts, odors and gases. (Tr. 19-23). With
the help of a vocational expert (VE), the ALJ determined that
Plaintiff was able to perform her past relevant work as a
dispatcher. (Tr. 23). The ALJ concluded that the Plaintiff
had not been under a disability, as defined in the Social
Security Act, from January 1, 2014, the alleged onset date,
through September 30, 2016, the date last insured. (Tr. 24).
Plaintiff
then requested a review of the hearing decision by the
Appeals Council, and that request was denied on June 6, 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.
11, 12).
This
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
Cir. 2000).
The
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).
IT IS
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.
---------
Notes:
[1] 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 ...