Turner v. Social Security Administration Commissioner
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable Erin L. Wiedemann on May 31, 2019. (lgd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HARRISON DIVISION
CAMMIE I. TURNER
v.
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL NO. 18-3030
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Commissioner
Social Security Administration
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, Cammie I. Turner, 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) 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 her current application for DIB on May 6, 2015, alleging
an inability to work since May 10, 2013, 1 due to seizures, hearing problems, anxiety, panic
attacks, post-traumatic stress disorder, severe depression, irritable bowel syndrome,
diverticulitis, chronic asthma, knee problems, cervical cancer stage 3, equilibrium problems,
gallbladder problems and suicidal attempts. (Tr. 90-91, 199, 213). For DIB purposes,
Plaintiff maintained insured status through December 31, 2015.
(Tr. 14, 29).
An
administrative hearing was held on March 16, 2017, at which Plaintiff appeared with counsel
and testified. (Tr. 23-66).
1 Due to a prior administrative determination, Plaintiff’s counsel requested Plaintiff’s amended alleged onset date be
amended to May 11, 2013. (Tr. 28).
1
By written decision dated July 3, 2017, the ALJ found that during the relevant time
period, Plaintiff had an impairment or combination of impairments that were severe. (Tr. 14).
Specifically, the ALJ found that through the date last insured Plaintiff had the following
severe impairments: sensorineural hearing loss (bilateral); major depression; anxiety;
posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD); and obesity. However, after reviewing all of the
evidence presented, the ALJ determined that through the date last insured 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. 15). The
ALJ found that through the date last insured Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity
(RFC) to:
perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) except as follows: The
claimant can perform work consisting of simple tasks and simple instructions
and incidental contact with the public.
(Tr. 17). With the help of a vocational expert, the ALJ determined that through the date last
insured Plaintiff could perform work as an ampule sealer, an escort driver and a fishing reel
assembler. (Tr. 21).
Plaintiff then requested a review of the hearing decision by the Appeals Council,
which denied that request on January 24, 2018. (Tr. 1-7). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed this
action. (Doc. 1). This case is before the undersigned pursuant to the consent of the parties.
(Doc. 7). 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
2
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 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 31st day of May 2019.
/ Erin L. Wiedemann
/s
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?