Foust v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable Erin L. Wiedemann on February 1, 2019. (tg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HARRISON DIVISION
RUBY A. FOUST
v.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL NO. 18-3007

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Commissioner
Social Security Administration

DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, Ruby A. Foust, 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 a period of disability and disability insurance benefits
(DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI) benefits under the provisions of Titles II and
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 applications for DIB and SSI on June 13, 2014,
alleging an inability to work since May 30, 2012, 1 due to a back injury, sciatic nerve damage,
lumbosacral pain, degenerative disc disease and treatment for fibromyalgia. (Tr. 75, 184,
191). For DIB purposes, Plaintiff maintained insured status through September 30, 2015.
(Tr. 205). An administrative hearing was held on December 9, 2015, at which Plaintiff
appeared with counsel and testified. (Tr. 32-72). After the hearing, Plaintiff submitted
additional medical records and underwent consultative examinations.

1

Plaintiff, through her counsel, amended her alleged onset date to June 15, 2010. (Tr. 15, 37-38).

1

By written decision dated March 10, 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: chronic
low back pain secondary to lumbar spine degenerative disc disease.

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. 20). The ALJ found Plaintiff
retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to:
perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b). She
can lift and carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently. She can
push and pull in these limitations. She can stand and walk for 6 hours in an 8hour workday, and sit for 6 hours in an 8-hour workday with normal breaks.
She can occasionally stoop and crouch.
(Tr. 21). With the help of a vocational expert, the ALJ determined Plaintiff could perform
work as a fast food worker, a cashier II and a price marker. (Tr. 25).
Plaintiff then requested a review of the hearing decision by the Appeals Council,
which after reviewing additional evidence submitted by Plaintiff, denied that request on
November 17, 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. 5). Both parties have
filed appeal briefs, and the case is now ready for decision. (Docs. 18, 19).
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

2

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).
DATED this 1st day of February 2019.

/s/ Erin L. Wiedemann
HON. ERIN L. WIEDEMANN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3