Johnson v. Social Security Administration Commissioner
Filing
18
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable Erin L. Wiedemann on August 21, 2019. (tg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HARRISON DIVISION
MELISSA SUE JOHNSON
v.
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL NO. 3:18-CV-3001
ANDREW M. SAUL, 1 Commissioner,
Social Security Administration
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, Melissa Sue Johnson, 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 July 17, 2014, alleging an
inability to work since July 17, 2014,2 due to bipolar disorder, paranoid schizophrenia, and
manic depressive disorder. (Tr. 29).3 An administrative hearing was held on August 11, 2016,
1
Andrew M. Saul, has been appointed to serve as Commissioner of Social Security, and is substituted as Defendant,
pursuant to Rule 25(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2
At the August 11, 2016, hearing before the ALJ, Plaintiff amended her alleged onset date from October 1, 2011, to July 17,
2014. (Tr. 550).
3
The Court notes that when the pages of the transcript were numbered, page 7 was not included; however, all pages of that
particular document appear to be in the record. No other page numbers appear to have been omitted.
1
at which Plaintiff appeared and testified. (Tr. 536-574). Deborah Steel, Vocational Expert
(VE), also testified. (Tr. 574-580).
By written decision dated June 26, 2017, the ALJ found that during the relevant time
period, Plaintiff had severe impairments of degenerative disc disease of the cervical and lumbar
spine with chronic pain syndrome; bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), status post-right
CTS release surgery; generalized osteoarthritis; hypothyroidism; obesity; unspecified episodic
mood disorder; major depressive disorder; anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified (NOS);
and an unspecified personality disorder with cluster B traits. (Tr. 17). 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. 17). The ALJ found that Plaintiff
retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform sedentary work as defined in 20
CFR 416.967(a), except for the following:
[Plaintiff] can occasionally climb ramps and stairs; she can never climb
ladders, ropes, and scaffolds; she can occasionally balance, stoop, kneel,
crouch, and crawl; and she can frequently, but not constantly, handle and finger
bilaterally. [Plaintiff] must avoid concentrated exposure to temperature
extremes, fumes, odors, dusts, gases, poor ventilation, and hazards, including
no driving as a part of work. [Plaintiff] can further perform work where
interpersonal contact with coworkers and supervisors is incidental to the work
performed and there is no contact with the public; where the complexity of
tasks is learned and performed by rote, with few variables and little use of
judgment; and where the supervision required is simple, direct, and concrete.
(Tr. 19-26). With the help of a vocational expert (VE), the ALJ determined that while Plaintiff
was unable to perform any past relevant work, there were jobs that existed in significant
numbers in the economy that Plaintiff could perform, such as an addressing clerk, a type copy
examiner, and a compact assembler. (Tr. 27-28). Therefore, the ALJ concluded that the
2
Plaintiff had not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from July 17,
2014, through the date of the decision. (Tr. 27).
Plaintiff then requested a review of the hearing decision by the Appeals Council, and
that request was denied on November 17, 2017. (Tr. 5-9). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed this
action. (Doc. 1). This case is before the undersigned pursuant to the consent of the parties.
(Doc. 8). Both parties have filed appeal briefs, and the case is now ready for decision. (Docs.
15-17).
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).
IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this 21st day of August, 2019.
/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?