Medley v. Social Security Administration Commissioner
Filing
12
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable Erin L. Wiedemann on May 11, 2018. (tg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HARRISON DIVISION
AMY F. MEDLEY
PLAINTIFF
v.
CIVIL NO. 17-3020
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Commissioner
Social Security Administration
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, Amy F. Medley, 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 claims for supplemental security income (SSI) benefits 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).
The application for SSI presently before this Court was protectively filed on January
12, 2010, alleging an inability to work due to depression, fibromyalgia, back problems, and
wrist problems. (Tr. 119, 147). An administrative hearing was held on March 17, 2011, at
which Plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified. (Tr. 20-62, 471-513).
In a written decision dated April 12, 2011, the ALJ found that Plaintiff retained the
RFC to perform sedentary work with limitations. (Tr. 9-19, 445-455). The Appeals Council
declined review of the ALJ’s decision on September 28, 2011. (Tr. 1-3). Plaintiff appealed
this decision in federal district court.
1
In a decision dated February 18, 2013, the Court remanded Plaintiff's case back to the
Commissioner for further consideration. (Tr. 459-466). The Appeals Council vacated the
ALJ's decision, and remanded Plaintiff's case back to the ALJ on May 14, 2013. (Tr. 467469). A supplemental hearing before the ALJ was held on September 19, 2013, at which
Plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified. (Tr. 400-441, 736-777).
In a decision dated December 13, 2013, the ALJ found Plaintiff retained the RFC to
perform sedentary work with limitations. (Tr. 381-394, 706-719). Plaintiff appealed this
decision in federal district court.
In a decision dated June 24, 2015, the Court remanded Plaintiff's case back to the
Commissioner for further consideration. (Tr. 692-701). The Appeals Council vacated the
ALJ's decision, and remanded Plaintiff's case back to a different ALJ on August 27, 2015. (Tr.
702-705). A supplemental hearing before the ALJ was held on May 24, 2016, at which
Plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified. (Tr. 644-678).
By written decision dated December 14, 2016, the ALJ found that during the relevant
time period, Plaintiff had an impairment or combination of impairments that were severe. (Tr.
625). Specifically, the ALJ found Plaintiff had the following severe impairments:
fibromyalgia, residual effects of a broken right wrist, borderline personality disorder, major
depressive disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder. However, after reviewing all of the
evidence presented, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff’s impairments 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. 625). The ALJ found Plaintiff retained the residual
functional capacity (RFC) to:
perform sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 416.967(a) except the claimant
can occasionally climb, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch and crawl. She can
2
frequently flex or extend her bilateral wrists. The claimant can perform work
that is limited to simple, routine and repetitive tasks, involving only simple,
work-related decisions, with few, if any, workplace changes and no more than
incidental contact with co-workers, supervisors and the general public.
(Tr. 627). With the help of a vocational expert, the ALJ determined Plaintiff could perform
work as a compact assembler, a motor polarizer and a dowel inspector. (Tr. 637).
Plaintiff appealed this decision in federal district court. (Doc. 1). This case is before
the undersigned pursuant to the consent of the parties. (Doc. 5). 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
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
3
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).
DATED this 11th day of May 2018.
/s/ Erin L. Wiedemann
HON. ERIN L. WIEDEMANN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4
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?