United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
ERIN L. WIEDEMANN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Sheila Devere, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g) seeking judicial review of a decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security Administration (the
“Commissioner”) denying her claim for a period of
disability, disability insurance benefits (“DIB”)
and supplemental security income (“SSI”) under
the provisions of Titles II and XVI of the Social Security
Act (the “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).
protectively filed her applications on October 16, 2015,
alleging an inability to work since February 25, 2015, due to
degenerative disc disease, bulging and ruptured discs, knee
problems, arthritis, carpal tunnel syndrome, hearing loss,
cataracts, and diabetes. (Tr. 21, 275). An administrative
hearing was held on February 16, 2017, at which plaintiff
appeared with counsel and testified. (Tr. 61-89).
written decision dated on May 22, 2017, the ALJ found that
during the relevant time period, Plaintiff had an impairment
or combination of impairments that were severe: cervical
degenerative disc disease s/p cervical fusion, lumbar
degenerative disc disease, right knee osteoarthritis,
diabetes mellitus, carpal tunnel syndrome, and hearing loss.
(Tr. 18-25). However, after reviewing all of the evidence
presented, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff's
impairments did not meet or equal the severity of any
impairment listed in the Listing of Impairments found in 20
CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (Tr. 25). The ALJ found
Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to:
[P]erform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and
416.967(b) except the claimant can only occasionally stoop,
kneel, crouch, crawl, and work overhead. She can have no
constant use of the bilateral upper extremities for grasping
or fingering. The work must not involve noise above the
moderate level as defined in the DOT, and the claimant is
limited to hearing and communicating simple instructions on
an occasional basis.
(Tr. 25-31). With the help of a vocational expert, the ALJ
found Plaintiff had no past relevant work but would be able
perform the representative occupations of a housekeeper or a
price tag ticketer. (Tr. 31-32).
Plaintiff filed this action. (Doc. 1). This case is before
the undersigned pursuant to the consent of the parties. (Doc.
8). Both parties have filed appeal briefs, and the case is
now ready for decision. (Docs. 13, 14).
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
raises the following issues in this matter: 1) Whether the
ALJ erred by failing to resolve a possible conflict between
the vocational expert's testimony and the DOT; and 2)
Whether the ALJ erred in finding Plaintiff retained the RFC
for a wide range of light work. (Doc. 13). The Court has
reviewed the entire transcript and the parties' briefs.
For the reasons stated in the ALJ's well-reasoned opinion
and in the Government's brief, the Court finds
Plaintiff's arguments on appeal to be without merit and
finds 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, 364 Fed.Appx. 307 (8th Cir. 2010)(district court
summarily affirmed the ALJ).
 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 ...