United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
ERIN L. WIEDEMANN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Sandra Kay Graham, 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 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).
protectively filed her current applications on August 23,
2016, alleging an inability to work since May 24, 2016, due
to arthritis, scoliosis, Crohn’s disease, foot
problems, recovering drug addiction, and COPD. (Tr. 16, 237).
An administrative hearing was held on December 20, 2016, at
which Plaintiff appeared with her non-attorney representative
and testified. (Tr. 30-59).
written decision dated March 13, 2018, the ALJ found that
through the date last insured, Plaintiff had an impairment or
combination of impairments that were severe. (Tr. 16- 19).
Specifically, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the following
severe impairments: lumbar spondylitis, facet arthropathy of
the lumbar spine, osteoarthritis, and Crohn’s disease.
(Tr. 19). However, after reviewing all the evidence
presented, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff’s
impairments did not meet or equal the level of severity of
any impairment listed in the Listing of Impairments found at
20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (Tr. 19). The ALJ
found Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity
(RFC) to perform the full range of light work as defined in
20 CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b), except Plaintiff required
a controlled environment not exposed to dust, fumes, or odors
in concentrated amounts. (Tr. 19-22). The ALJ found Plaintiff
was capable of performing her past relevant work as a Cashier
II, Desk Clerk, Arcade Attendant, or Salesperson. (Tr. 22).
March 20, 2018, Plaintiff requested a review of the hearing
decision by the Appeals Council. (Tr. 190). The Appeals
Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review. (Tr.
1-4). 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. 12,
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 only one issue on appeal, whether the ALJ erred in
failing to include limitations described by the only
examining, treating medical opinion of record during the
relevant time period without providing good, specific, and
supported reasons for their exclusion. (Doc. 12, p. 1). The
Commissioner argues that the ALJ’s Step Four
determination was supported by substantial evidence, and that
the ALJ properly discounted Dr. Samuel’s opinion to the
degree it was based upon Plaintiff’s subjective
complaints. (Doc. 13, p. 6). 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 ...