United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Harrison Division
AMANDA M. SEAMAN PLAINTIFF
ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner Social Security Administration DEFENDANT
ERIN L. WIEDEMANN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Amanda M. Seaman, 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”) benefits 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 DIB and SSI applications on June 22,
2016, and June 24, 2016. (Tr. 11). In her applications,
Plaintiff alleged disability beginning on May 10, 2015, due
to: social anxiety, depression, panic attacks, suicidal
thoughts, irritable bowel syndrome, chronic fatigue, and
paranoia. (Tr. 11, 248). An administrative hearing was held
on November 17, 2017, at which Plaintiff appeared with
counsel and testified. (Tr. 46-77). Plaintiff's mother,
Anita Sue Seaman, and a vocational expert also testified.
written decision dated April 10, 2018, the ALJ found that
during the relevant time period, Plaintiff had an impairment
or combination of impairments that were severe: affective
disorder, anxiety disorder, personality disorder,
neurodevelopmental disorder, disorder of the muscle and
connective tissue, fibromyalgia, rheumatoid arthritis,
insomnia, and obesity. (Tr. 8, 13-14). 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. 14-16). The ALJ found Plaintiff retained the residual
functional capacity (RFC) to:
[P]erform sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 416.1567(a) and
416.967(a), except the claimant requires the use of a cane
when ambulating; the claimant is limited to simple, routine,
and repetitive tasks performed in a setting where
interpersonal contact is incidental to the work performed,
and where the supervision required is simple, direct, and
concrete. (Tr. 16-21).
upon the testimony of the vocational expert, the ALJ found
Plaintiff would be unable to perform any of her past relevant
work but would be able to perform the representative
occupations of addresser, escort vehicle driver, or stuffer.
Plaintiff filed this action. (Doc. 1). This case is before
the undersigned pursuant to the consent of the parties. (Doc.
6). Both parties have filed appeal briefs, and the case is
now ready for decision. (Docs. 13, 15).
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's erred by failing to evaluate the combined effects
of Plaintiff's impairments; and 2) Whether the ALJ's
decision was supported by substantial evidence. (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 ...