Shatswell v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable Erin L. Wiedemann on February 20, 2018. (rg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

BRANDY SHATSWELL

v.

PLAINTIFF

CIVIL NO. 5:16-CV-5209

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, 1 Acting Commissioner,
Social Security Administration

DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, Brandy Shatswell, 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) 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 August 15, 2013,
alleging an inability to work since December 1, 2012, due to nerve disease, fibromyalgia, pain
and anxiety. (Tr. 59, 71, 83, 98). For DIB purposes, Plaintiff maintained insured status through
March 31, 2015. (Tr. 59, 83). An administrative video hearing was held on January 6, 2015,
at which Plaintiff and a vocational expert testified. (Tr. 31-55).

1

Nancy A. Berryhill, has been appointed to serve as acting Commissioner of Social Security, and is substituted as
Defendant, pursuant to Rule 25(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

1

By written decision dated March 27, 2015, the ALJ found that during the relevant time
periods, Plaintiff had a severe impairments of peripheral neuropathy, fibromyalgia, depression,
and anxiety. (Tr. 14). 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. 15-16). The ALJ found that Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity
(RFC) to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b), except that
she could do work with simple tasks, simple instructions, and incidental contact with others.
(Tr. 17-21). With the help of a vocational expert (VE), the ALJ determined that while Plaintiff
was unable to perform her past relevant work, there were jobs that existed in significant
numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform, such as a warehouse checker, a
content inspector, and a shipping weigher. (Tr. 22).
Plaintiff then requested a review of the hearing decision by the Appeals Council, which
denied that request on June 15, 2016. (Tr. 1-6). 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 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

2

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).
IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this 20th day of February, 2018.

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

3