Martin v. Social Security Administration Commissioner
Filing
12
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable Erin L. Wiedemann on July 19, 2018. (lgd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HARRISON DIVISION
LONNY M. MARTIN
v.
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL NO. 3:17-CV-3014
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, 1 Acting Commissioner,
Social Security Administration
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, Lonny M. Martin, 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 October 21, 2013, alleging
an inability to work since June 1, 2013, due to chronic pain and migraines. (Tr. 66, 74). An
administrative hearing was held on December 19, 2014, at which Plaintiff and a vocational
expert testified. (Tr. 35-64).
By written decision dated January 13, 2016, the ALJ found that during the relevant
time period, Plaintiff had severe impairments of chronic migraine headaches, chronic pain,
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.
1
carpal tunnel syndrome, social anxiety disorder, borderline intellectual functioning, and
obesity. (Tr. 20). 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. 21). The
ALJ found that Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform light work
as defined in 20 CFR 416.967(b), except for the following:
[C]laimant can only occasionally climb ramps, stairs, ladders, ropes, and/or
scaffolds. The claimant can only occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, crouch,
and/or crawl. The claimant can frequently, but not continuously, handle and/or
finger on a bilateral basis. The claimant must avoid concentrated exposure to
extreme heat and/or cold, noise, fumes, odors, dust, gases, and poorly ventilated
areas. The claimant has “good” ability to perform the following activities:
follow work rules; function independently; maintain attention/concentration;
understand, remember, and carry out complex job instructions; understand,
remember, and carry out detailed, but not complex jobs instruction; understand,
remember, and carry out simple jobs instructions; maintain personal
appearance; and demonstrate reliability. The claimant has “fair” ability to:
related to co-workers; use judgment; interact with supervisors; deal with work
stress; and behave in an emotionally stable manner. The claimant has “poor”
ability to deal with the public and relate predictably in social situations.
(Tr. 23-28). While Plaintiff had no past relevant work, with the help of a vocational expert
(VE), the ALJ determined that there were jobs that existed in significant numbers in the
national economy that Plaintiff could perform, such as mail clerk, office helper, and photocopy
machine operator. (Tr. 29).
Plaintiff then requested a review of the hearing decision by the Appeals Council, which
denied that request on December 6, 2016. (Tr. 1-4). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed this action.
(Doc. 1). This case is before the undersigned pursuant to the consent of the parties. (Doc. 6).
Both parties have filed appeal briefs, and the case is now ready for decision. (Docs. 10, 11).
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
2
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 19th day of July, 2018.
/s/ Erin L. Wiedemann
HON. ERIN L. WIEDEMANN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?