Wooldridge v. Social Security Administration Commissioner
Filing
16
MEMORANDUM OPINION AFFIRMING ALJ's decision. Signed by Honorable Erin L. Wiedemann on November 27, 2018. (lgd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HARRISON DIVISION
JOHN H. WOOLRIDGE
v.
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL NO. 17-3116
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Commissioner
Social Security Administration
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, John H. Woolridge, 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 his claims for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits
(DIB) under the provisions of Title II 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 his current application for DIB on March 11, 2014, alleging
an inability to work since October 1, 2013, due to a compressed disc in the lower back, bone
spurs in the lower back, bone spurs in the neck and plantar fasciitis. (Tr. 75, 161). An
administrative hearing was held on February 23, 2016, at which Plaintiff appeared with counsel
and testified. (Tr. 31-73).
By written decision dated February 22, 2017, the ALJ found that during the relevant
time period, Plaintiff had an impairment or combination of impairments that were severe. (Tr.
18). Specifically, the ALJ found Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: degenerative
disc disease and dysfunction of a major joint. However, after reviewing all of the evidence
1
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. 19). The ALJ found Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity
(RFC) to:
perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) except that he could lift
and (sic) and/or carry 20 pounds occasionally and lift and/or carry 10 pounds
frequently. He can stand and/or walk six hours of an eight-hour workday with
normal breaks. He can push and pull with limitations pursuant to his lift and
carry limitations. The claimant’s ability to handle and finger on the right is
frequent and his ability to handle and finger on the left is occasional, which is
for a right-handed dominant individual. Rotation, flexion, and extension of his
neck is occasional. The claimant is limited to jobs that do not require complex
written communication.
(Tr. 20). With the help of a vocational expert, the ALJ determined Plaintiff could perform work
as a routing clerk, a power screwdriver operator and a canning machine tender. (Tr. 25).
Plaintiff then requested a review of the hearing decision by the Appeals Council, which
denied that request on November 8, 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. 6).
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
2
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).
DATED this 27th day of November 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?