United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
HOLLY M. SPANJER PLAINTIFF
ANDREW M. SAUL,  Commissioner, Social Security Administration DEFENDANT
ERIN L. WIEDEMANN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Holly M. Spanjer, 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 supplemental security
income (SSI) under the provisions of Title 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. § 405(g).
protectively filed her current application for SSI on July
20, 2015, alleging an inability to work since February 28,
2015, due to various health conditions, including issues with
her back, blood pressure, cholesterol, and asthma. (Tr. 70,
81). An administrative hearing was held on December 14, 2016,
at which Plaintiff appeared and testified. (Tr. 42-68). Dr.
Tanya Owen, Vocational Expert (VE), also testified. (Tr.
written decision dated September 28, 2017, the ALJ found that
during the relevant time period, Plaintiff had severe
impairments of degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine,
asthma, and obesity. (Tr. 13). 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. 13). The ALJ found that Plaintiff retained the residual
functional capacity (RFC) to perform sedentary work as
defined in 20 CFR 416.967(a), with exceptions for standing
and walking two hours of an eight hour workday with normal
breaks; sitting six hours of an eight hour workday with
normal breaks; with the ability to push and pull as much as
she could lift and carry; occasional climbing of ramps and
stairs but no climbing of ladders, ropes or scaffolds;
occasional stooping, balancing, kneeling, crawling and
crouching; no work environment with even moderate exposure to
fumes, odors, dust, gases and poorly ventilated areas; and
the use of a hand held assistive device at all times. (Tr.
13-17). With the help of a vocational expert (VE), the ALJ
determined that while Plaintiff was unable to perform any
past relevant work, there were jobs that existed in
significant numbers in the economy that Plaintiff could
perform, such as a document preparer, an information clerk,
and a circuit board assembler. (Tr. 19). Therefore, the ALJ
concluded that the Plaintiff had not been under a disability,
as defined in the Social Security Act, from July 20, 2015,
through the date of the decision. (Tr. 19).
then requested a review of the hearing decision by the
Appeals Council, and that request was denied on November 17,
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. 7). 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 ...