United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
ERIN L. WIEDEMANN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Dawn Peters, 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
December 3, 2015, alleging an inability to work since October
6, 2015, due to fibromyalgia. (Tr. 82, 90-91). For DIB
purposes, Plaintiff maintained insured status through
December 31, 2019. (Tr. 82, 90). An administrative hearing
was held on August 23, 2016, and a supplemental video hearing
was held on April 5, 2017. (Tr. 28-49, 50-80). Plaintiff
testified at both hearings. (Tr. 28-49, 5080). Barbara
Hubbard, vocational expert (VE), also testified at both
hearings. (Tr. 44-48, 76-79).
written decision dated August 17, 2017, the ALJ found that
during the relevant time period, Plaintiff had severe
impairments of fibromyalgia, degenerative disc disease (DDD)
of the lumbar spine, lumbar spondylosis, and depression. (Tr.
14). 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. 14-15). The ALJ found that Plaintiff
retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform
light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b), except that she
was limited to simple tasks and simple instructions. (Tr.
16-19). With the help of a vocational expert (VE), the ALJ
determined that although Plaintiff was unable to perform her
past relevant work there jobs that existed in significant
numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform,
such as a retail sales attendant, a marking clerk, and a
routing clerk. (Tr. 21). The ALJ concluded that the Plaintiff
had not been under a disability, as defined in the Social
Security Act, from October 6, 2015, through 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 April 25,
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).
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 ...