# Turner v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

> District Court, W.D. Arkansas · May 28, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11060881

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** May 28, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11060881

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION

MELISSA TURNER PLAINTIFF

vs. Civil No. 4:24-cv-04074

FRANK BISIGNANO, DEFENDANT
Commissioner, Social Security Administration

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Melissa Turner (“Plaintiff”) brings this action pursuant to § 205(g) of Title II of the Social
Security Act (“The Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2010), seeking judicial review of a final decision
of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) denying her application for
Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the Act.
The Parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge to conduct any and all
proceedings in this case, including conducting the trial, ordering the entry of a final judgment, and
conducting all post-judgment proceedings. ECF No. 5. Pursuant to this authority, the Court issues
this memorandum opinion and orders the entry of a final judgment in this matter.
1. Background:
Plaintiff filed her disability application on November 6, 2020. (Tr. 14).1 In her application,
0F
Plaintiff alleges being disabled due to bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder,
fibromyalgia, and pain. (Tr. 201). Plaintiff alleged an onset date of December 13, 2016. (Tr. 14).
Plaintiff’s application was denied initially and again upon reconsideration. Id.

1 The docket numbers for this case are referenced by the designation “ECF No. ___.” The
transcript pages for this case are referenced by the designation “Tr.” and refer to the document
filed at ECF No. 7. These references are to the page number of the transcript itself not the ECF
page number.
Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing on her denied application, and this hearing
request was granted. (Tr. 100-161). This hearing was held on December 8, 2022. (Tr. 33-61). At
this hearing, Plaintiff was present and represented by Greg Giles. Id. Plaintiff and Vocational
Expert (“VE”) Christy Atkins testified at the hearing. Id.

Following the administrative hearing, on November 8, 2023, the ALJ entered an
unfavorable decision. (Tr. 14-27). In this decision, the ALJ determined Plaintiff last met the
insured status of the Act on December 31, 2021. (Tr. 16, Finding 1). The ALJ also determined
Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity (“SGA”) from her onset date through
December 31, 2021. (Tr. 16, Finding 2).
The ALJ then determined Plaintiff had severe impairments of fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis
of the knee, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, personality disorder, and generalized
anxiety disorder. (Tr. 16, Finding 3). Despite being severe, the ALJ determined those impairments
did not meet or medically equal the requirements of any of the Listings of Impairments in 20 CFR
Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (“Listings”). (Tr. 17, Finding 4).

The ALJ considered Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and determined her RFC. (Tr. 19-
25). The ALJ evaluated Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and found the claimed limitations were
not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record. Id. The ALJ
also determined Plaintiff retained the RFC to perform light work except she could climb ramps
and stairs occasionally, but could never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; could occasionally
stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl; must avoid concentrated exposure to humidity, dust, odors, fumes,
and pulmonary irritants; and could follow semiskilled, 3- to 4-step tasks where interpersonal
contact is routine but superficial. Id.
The ALJ then evaluated Plaintiff’s Past Relevant Work (“PRW”). (Tr. 25, Finding 6). The
ALJ determined Plaintiff was not capable of performing any PRW. Id. However, the ALJ found
there were jobs in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform. (Tr.
26, Finding 10). With the help of the VE, the ALJ found Plaintiff could perform the representative

occupations of (1) electronics worker with approximately 19,000 jobs in the nation, (2) printed
circuit board screener with approximately 48,000 jobs in the nation, and (3) suture winder with
approximately 12,500 jobs in the nation. Id. Based upon this finding, the ALJ determined Plaintiff
had not been disabled under the Act from December 13, 2016, through December 31, 2021. (Tr.
27, Finding 11).
On July 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed the present appeal. ECF No. 1. Both Parties have filed
appeal briefs. ECF Nos. 11, 13. This case is now ready for decision.
2. Applicable Law:
In reviewing this case, the Court is required to determine whether the Commissioner’s
findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)

(2010); Ramirez v. Barnhart, 292 F.3d 576, 583 (8th Cir. 2002). Substantial evidence is less than
a preponderance of the evidence, but it is enough that a reasonable mind would find it adequate to
support the Commissioner’s decision. See Johnson v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1145, 1147 (8th Cir. 2001).
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.
See Haley v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 742, 747 (8th Cir. 2001). 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. See Young v. Apfel, 221 F.3d
1065, 1068 (8th Cir. 2000).
It is well-established that a claimant for Social Security disability benefits has the burden
of proving his or her disability by establishing a physical or mental disability that lasted at least

one year and that prevents him or her from engaging in any substantial gainful activity. See Cox
v. Apfel, 160 F.3d 1203, 1206 (8th Cir. 1998); 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). The
Act defines a “physical or mental impairment” as “an impairment that results from anatomical,
physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are demonstrable by medically acceptable
clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(3), 1382(3)(c). A plaintiff
must show that his or her disability, not simply his or her impairment, has lasted for at least twelve
consecutive months. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A).
To determine whether the adult claimant suffers from a disability, the Commissioner uses
the familiar five-step sequential evaluation. He determines: (1) whether the claimant is presently
engaged in a “substantial gainful activity”; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment that

significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities; (3)
whether the claimant has an impairment that meets or equals a presumptively disabling impairment
listed in the regulations (if so, the claimant is disabled without regard to age, education, and work
experience); (4) whether the claimant has the Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) to perform his
or her past relevant work; and (5) if the claimant cannot perform the past work, the burden shifts
to the Commissioner to prove that there are other jobs in the national economy that the claimant
can perform. See Cox, 160 F.3d at 1206; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)-(f). The fact finder only
considers the plaintiff’s age, education, and work experience in light of his or her RFC if the final
stage of this analysis is reached. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920 (2003).
3. Discussion:
In her appeal brief, Plaintiff claims the ALJ’s disability decision is not supported by
substantial evidence in the record. ECF No. 11. In making this claim, Plaintiff argues the ALJ
erred (1) by failing to properly evaluate Plaintiff’s Fibromyalgia, (2) by failing to properly evaluate

Plaintiff’s obesity, (3) by failing to properly evaluate Plaintiff’s bipolar disorder, and (4) by
presenting an improper hypothetical to the VE. Id. In response, Defendant argues the ALJ did not
err in any of her findings. ECF No. 13.
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 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).
4. Conclusion:
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that the decision of the ALJ, denying

benefits to Plaintiff, is supported by substantial evidence, and should be affirmed. A judgment
incorporating these findings will be entered pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52 and
58.
ENTERED this 28th day of May 2025.
Barry A. Bryant
/s/
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11060881. Public record. Not legal advice.