# Brown

> District Court, W.D. Arkansas · April 3, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11304531

## Case

- **Full name:** Belinda Brown v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner, Social Security Administration
- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** April 3, 2026
- **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/11304531

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION

BELINDA BROWN PLAINTIFF

vs. Civil No. 1:25-cv-01048

FRANK BISIGNANO, DEFENDANT
Commissioner, Social Security Administration

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Belinda Brown (“Plaintiff”) brings this action pursuant to § 205(g) of Title II of the Social
Security Act (“The Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) denying her application for
Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Title XVI 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. 6. 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 August 29, 2022. (Tr. 17).1 In her application,
0F
Plaintiff alleges being disabled due to esophagus issues, anxiety, depression, and acid reflux. (Tr.
212). Plaintiff alleged an onset date of August 1, 2014. (Tr. 17). 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.
8. These references are to the page number of the transcript itself not the ECF page number.
Plaintiff then requested an administrative hearing on her denied application, and this hearing
request was granted. (Tr. 107-164). Plaintiff’s administrative hearing was held on April 15, 2024.
(Tr. 32-42). Plaintiff was present and was represented by Randolph Baltz at this hearing. Id. Plaintiff
and a Vocational Expert (“VE”) testified at this hearing. Id.

Following the administrative hearing, on May 31, 2024, the ALJ entered an unfavorable
decision. (Tr. 17-26). In this decision, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial
gainful activity (“SGA”) since August 29, 2022. (Tr. 19, Finding 1). The ALJ also determined
Plaintiff had medically determinable impairments of esophagitis, acid reflux, anxiety disorder, and
depression. (Tr. 19, Finding 2).
The ALJ then found Plaintiff did not have an impairment or a combination of impairments
that significantly limited (or was expected to significantly limit) her ability to perform basic work-
related activities for 12 consecutive months; and therefore, Plaintiff did not have a severe impairment
or combination of impairments. (Tr. 19, Finding 3). Based on this, the ALJ concluded Plaintiff was
not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act since August 29, 2022. (Tr. 26, Finding

4).
On June 23, 2025, Plaintiff filed the present appeal. ECF No. 3. Both Parties have filed appeal
briefs. ECF Nos. 10, 14. 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. 10. In making this claim, Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred
in evaluating the severity of Plaintiff’s medically determinable mental and physical impairments. Id.
In response, Defendant argues the ALJ did not err in any of his findings. ECF No. 14.
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).
On January 18, 2017, the SSA adopted new rules which, for claims filed after March 27, 2017,
modify the “treating physician” rule. Because this claim was filed after that date, this new rule applies
here. Under the new rule, the ALJ is required to consider factors such as the supportability of the
medical source’s opinion, the consistency of that opinion, the relationship of the claimant to the

medical source, and specialization of the medical source. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(c) and
416.920c(c). Under these new regulations, the SSA “will consider” these factors. See id. The ALJ
must “articulate in [their] determination or decision how persuasive [they] find all of the medical
opinions and all of the prior administrative medical findings in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1520c(b). Supportability and consistency are the most important factors and must be discussed
in the ALJ’s decision. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(b)(2), 416.920c(b)(2). The ALJ may, but is not
required to, explain how he or she considered the other factors. Id.
Plaintiff claims the ALJ erred in assessing the opinions of Dr. Rodeny Goodwin who
performed a consultative exam; Dr. Kay Cogbill and Dr. David Voss who both performed state agency
psychological consults; and Dr. Amanda Ederle who performed a consultative physical examination.

The Court finds no error in the ALJ’s assessment of these physician opinions. The ALJ
considered supportability and consistency, as required by the applicable regulations, and provided
adequate explanations for his conclusions. (Tr. 22-26). For each of these physicians, the ALJ noted
in detail their findings, discussed inconsistencies and basis for support from testimony and medical
records, and provided sufficient reasoning of the persuasiveness given to each physicians’ opinions
as its relates to the severity of Plaintiff’s mental and physical impairments. Id.
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 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 3rd day of April 2026.
Spencer G. Singleton
/s/
HONORABLE SPENCER G. SINGLETON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11304531. Public record. Not legal advice.