Burley v. Social Security Administration Commissioner
Filing
16
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable Erin L. Wiedemann on March 28, 2019. (src)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
CANDACE A. BURLEY
v.
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL NO. 17-05176
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Commissioner
Social Security Administration
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, Candace A. Burley, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking
judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security Administration
(Commissioner) denying her claim for a period of disability, disability insurance benefits
(“DIB”), and supplemental security income (“SSI”) benefits under Titles II and XVI of the
Social Security Act (hereinafter “the Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). 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 applications on March 25, 2014, alleging an inability to
work since February 28, 2014, due to depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD),
gastritis, colitis, carpal tunnel syndrome in both hands, and a blood clot. (Tr. 20, 235). An
administrative hearing was held on June 30, 2015, at which plaintiff appeared with counsel
and testified. (Tr. 39-55).
By written decision dated July 14, 2016, the ALJ found that during the relevant time
period, Plaintiff had an impairment or combination of impairments that were severe: bilateral
carpal tunnel syndrome, status post-surgical release; obesity; degenerative disc disease; post1
traumatic stress disorder (PTSD); anxiety disorder; affective disorder; borderline personality
disorder. (Tr. 227). However, after reviewing all of the evidence presented, the ALJ determined
that Plaintiff’s impairments did not meet or equal the severity of any impairment listed in the
Listing of Impairments found in Appendix I, Subpart P, Regulation No. 4. (Tr. 23-24). The
ALJ found Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to:
[P]erform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b)
except she is limited to frequent handling and fingering bilaterally; and
limited to performing work where interpersonal contact is incidental to the
work performed, learned by rote, few variables, little judgment, and
supervision is simple, direct, and concrete.
(Tr. 24). With the help of a vocational expert, the ALJ found Plaintiff would be unable to
perform any of her past relevant work but would be able perform the representative occupations
of a power screwdriver operator, or a compression molding machine tender. (Tr. 26-27).
Subsequently, Plaintiff filed this action. (Doc. 1). This case is before the undersigned
pursuant to the consent of the parties. (Doc. 9). 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
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
2
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).
Plaintiff brings the present appeal claiming the ALJ’s decision must be remanded due
to the submission of new and material evidence submitted after the hearing which contradicts
the ALJ’s findings regarding the severity of Plaintiff’s degenerative disc disease and his
evaluation of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints. (Doc. 14, pp. 1-4). Plaintiff also argues the
Commissioner’s decision must be reversed because the ALJ failed to fully and fairly develop
the record regarding Plaintiff’s physical limitations. (Doc. 14, pp. 4-7). The Court has reviewed
the entire transcript and the parties’ briefs. For the reasons stated in the ALJ’s well-reasoned
opinion and in the Government’s brief, the Court finds Plaintiff’s arguments on appeal to be
without merit and finds 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, 364 Fed. Appx. 307 (8th Cir.
2010)(district court summarily affirmed the ALJ).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th 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?