Chrisco v. Social Security Administration Commissioner
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable Erin L. Wiedemann on February 12, 2019. (lgd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HARRISON DIVISION
DARRAH M. CHRISCO
v.
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL NO. 18-3010
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Commissioner
Social Security Administration
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, Darrah M. Chrisco, 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).
Plaintiff protectively filed her current application for SSI on December 4, 2014,
alleging an inability to work due to heart disease, an irregular heartbeat, depression, seizures,
three crushed vertebrae in the neck, a shattered right foot, a fractured right ankle, a left ankle
injury, arthritis, osteoporosis and chronic degenerative bone disease of the back and hips. (Tr.
89-90, 203). An administrative hearing was held on September 1, 2016, at which Plaintiff
appeared with counsel and testified. (Tr. 62-87).
By written decision dated April 13, 2017, the ALJ found that during the relevant time
period, Plaintiff had an impairment or combination of impairments that were severe. (Tr. 17).
Specifically, the ALJ found Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: an unspecified
1
personality disorder and degenerative disc disease of the lumbar and cervical spine. 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. 18). The ALJ found
Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to:
perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 416.967(b) except the claimant is
limited to occasional climbing, balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, or
crawling; the claimant is limited to occasional overhead reaching bilaterally;
the claimant is limited to simple, routine, and repetitive tasks, involving 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. 19-20). With the help of a vocational expert, the ALJ determined Plaintiff could perform
work as an inspector and a plumbing hardware assembler. (Tr. 28).
Plaintiff then requested a review of the hearing decision by the Appeals Council, which
denied that request on November 29, 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. 12, 13).
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
2
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 12th day of February 2019.
/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?