Hulse v. Social Security Administration Commissioner
Filing
16
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable Erin L. Wiedemann on March 27, 2019. (tg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
SONIA HULSE
v.
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL NO. 5:17-CV-5170
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, 1 Acting Commissioner,
Social Security Administration
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, Sonia Hulse, 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 October 29, 2014, alleging
an inability to work since May 1, 2014, due to anxiety, bipolar disorder, depression, psychotic
episodes, and hallucinations. (Tr. 68, 83-84). An administrative hearing was held on January
22, 2016, at which Plaintiff and a vocational expert testified. (Tr. 36-66).
By written decision dated April 29, 2016, the ALJ found that during the relevant time
period, Plaintiff had severe impairments of affective disorder, variously diagnosed as bipolar
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
disorder, depressive disorder, and depression NOS; generalized anxiety disorder; insomnia;
personality disorder NOS with cluster B & C traits; and polysubstance dependence in partial
remission. (Tr. 19). 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. 20). The ALJ found that Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity (RFC)
to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels, but with the following non-exertional
limitations: Plaintiff can understand, remember and carry out simple instructions and tasks,
and Plaintiff can concentrate on those tasks for extended periods of two or more hours at once.
(Tr. 21-27). With the help of a vocational expert (VE), the ALJ determined that while Plaintiff
did not have any past relevant work, there were jobs that existed in significant numbers in the
economy that Plaintiff could perform, such as a hand packager and an industrial cleaner. (Tr.
28). Therefore, the ALJ concluded that the Plaintiff had not been under a disability, as defined
in the Social Security Act, since October 29, 2014, through the date of the decision. (Tr. 28).
Plaintiff then requested a review of the hearing decision by the Appeals Council, which
denied that request on June 27, 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. 6). Both
parties have filed appeal briefs, and the case is now ready for decision. (Docs. 14, 15).
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
2
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).
IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this 27th day of March, 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?