The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
ALLIANA WILSON PLAINTIFF
v. CIVIL NO. 17-5240
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Commissioner
Social Security Administration DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, Alliana Wilson, 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 claims for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits
(DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI) benefits under the provisions of Titles II and
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).
Plaintiff protectively filed her current applications for DIB and SSI on August 6, 2015,
alleging an inability to work since March 20, 2015, due to congestive heart failure, chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), hypertension, edema and asthma. (Tr. 51, 176, 183).
An administrative hearing was held on June 27, 2016, at which Plaintiff appeared with counsel
and testified. (Tr. 23-47).
By written decision dated July 27, 2016, the ALJ found that during the relevant time
period, Plaintiff had an impairment or combination of impairments that were severe. (Tr. 12).
Specifically, the ALJ found Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease, hypertension, a history of congestive heart failure, degenerative disc
disease of the lumbar spine and obesity. However, after reviewing all of 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 in Appendix I, Subpart
P, Regulation No. 4. (Tr. 13). 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 she could only occasionally climb, balance, crawl, kneel, stoop, or
crouch, and must avoid concentrated exposure to pulmonary irritants like dusts,
gases, or odors.
(Tr. 13). With the help of a vocational expert, the ALJ determined Plaintiff could perform
work as a printed circuit board checker, an ordinance checker and an ampoule sealer. (Tr. 17)
Plaintiff then requested a review of the hearing decision by the Appeals Council, which
denied that request on September 21, 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. 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).
The 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).
DATED this 23rd day of January 2019.
/s/ Erin L. Wiedemann
HON. ERIN L. WIEDEMANN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE