The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
MARY CELESTE BROWN-JENKINS PLAINTIFF
v. CIVIL NO. 5:17-CV-5204
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, 1 Acting Commissioner,
Social Security Administration DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, Mary Celeste Brown-Jenkins, 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).
Plaintiff protectively filed her current application for SSI on November 20, 2014,
alleging an inability to work since July 4, 2013,2 due to Crohn’s disease, hiatal hernia, psoriasis,
and arthritis. (Tr. 52, 63). An administrative hearing was held on October 28, 2015, at which
Plaintiff and a vocational expert testified. (Tr. 31-50).
By written decision dated August 18, 2016, the ALJ found that during the relevant time
period, Plaintiff had severe impairments of short bowel syndrome, fibromyalgia, irritable
1 Nancy A. Berryhill, has been appointed to serve as acting Commissioner of Social Security, and is substituted as
Defendant, pursuant to Rule 25(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2 At the October 28, 2015, hearing before the ALJ, Plaintiff amended her alleged onset date from June 21, 2013, to July 4,
2013. (Tr. 33).
bowel syndrome, osteoporosis, and Crohn’s disease. (Tr. 17). 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. 18). The ALJ found that Plaintiff retained the residual
functional capacity (RFC) to perform medium work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(c), except
that she could only frequently handle and finger on the left. (Tr. 19-22). With the help of a
vocational expert (VE), the ALJ determined that Plaintiff was able to perform her past relevant
work as an office clerk, a parts salesperson, and a correctional officer. (Tr. 22). Therefore, the
ALJ concluded that the Plaintiff had not been under a disability, as defined in the Social
Security Act, from November 20, 2014, through the date of the decision. (Tr. 23).
Plaintiff then requested a review of the hearing decision by the Appeals Council, and
the request was denied on August 16, 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).
IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this 8th day of February 2019.
/s/ Erin L. Wiedemann
HON. ERIN L. WIEDEMANN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE