United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Harrison Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION
HON.
ERIN L. WIEDEMANN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff,
Louis Castro, 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 his claims 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).
Plaintiff
protectively filed his applications on April 25, 2016,
alleging an inability to work since March 25, 2016, due to:
lumbago with sciatica on the left side; other spondylosis
with myelopathy-lumbar region; arthritis of spine; ruptured
disc in lower back. (Tr. 124, 317, 400, 436). An
administrative hearing was held on July 27, 2017, at which
plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified. (Tr. 229-60).
By
written decision dated January 25, 2018, the ALJ found that
during the relevant time period, Plaintiff had an impairment
or combination of impairments that were severe: disorder of
the back and obesity. (Tr. 121-35). 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. 128-29). The ALJ found Plaintiff retained the residual
functional capacity (RFC) to perform sedentary work as
defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(a) and 416.967(a), except the
Plaintiff could only occasionally climb, balance, crawl,
kneel, stoop, and/or crouch. (Tr. 129-33). With the help of a
vocational expert, the ALJ found Plaintiff would be unable to
do any of his past relevant work, but would be able perform
the representative occupations of a small product assembler,
document preparer, or an escort vehicle driver. (133-34).
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. 13, 14, 15).
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).
Plaintiff
raises the following issues in this matter: 1) Whether the
ALJ committed reversible error in failing to find that
Plaintiff's impairments met or medically equaled the
criteria for Listing 1.04(A); and 2) Whether the ALJ
committed reversible error in finding Plaintiff's
medically determinable mental health impairments to be
non-severe. (Doc. 13). In his reply brief, Plaintiff
additionally argues the Commissioner's post-hoc
justification could not cure the ALJ's error in failing
to make a proper finding on whether Plaintiff met or equaled
Listing 1.04(A). (Doc. 15). 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).
IT IS
ORDERED.
---------
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 ...