The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
HOLLY M. SPANJER PLAINTIFF
v. CIVIL NO. 5:18-CV-5077
ANDREW M. SAUL, 1 Commissioner,
Social Security Administration DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, Holly M. Spanjer, 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 July 20, 2015, alleging an
inability to work since February 28, 2015, due to various health conditions, including issues
with her back, blood pressure, cholesterol, and asthma. (Tr. 70, 81). An administrative hearing
was held on December 14, 2016, at which Plaintiff appeared and testified. (Tr. 42-68). Dr.
Tanya Owen, Vocational Expert (VE), also testified. (Tr. 61-68).
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 Rules of Civil Procedure.
By written decision dated September 28, 2017, the ALJ found that during the relevant
time period, Plaintiff had severe impairments of degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine,
asthma, and obesity. (Tr. 13). 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. 13). The ALJ found that Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity (RFC)
to perform sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 416.967(a), with exceptions for standing and
walking two hours of an eight hour workday with normal breaks; sitting six hours of an eight
hour workday with normal breaks; with the ability to push and pull as much as she could lift
and carry; occasional climbing of ramps and stairs but no climbing of ladders, ropes or
scaffolds; occasional stooping, balancing, kneeling, crawling and crouching; no work
environment with even moderate exposure to fumes, odors, dust, gases and poorly ventilated
areas; and the use of a hand held assistive device at all times. (Tr. 13-17). With the help of a
vocational expert (VE), the ALJ determined that while Plaintiff was unable to perform any past
relevant work, there were jobs that existed in significant numbers in the economy that Plaintiff
could perform, such as a document preparer, an information clerk, and a circuit board
assembler. (Tr. 19). Therefore, the ALJ concluded that the Plaintiff had not been under a
disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from July 20, 2015, through the date of the
decision. (Tr. 19).
Plaintiff then requested a review of the hearing decision by the Appeals Council, and
that request was denied on November 17, 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 11th day of September, 2019.
/s/ Erin L. Wiedemann
HON. ERIN L. WIEDEMANN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE