Gantt v. Social Security Administration Commissioner
Filing
15
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable Erin L. Wiedemann on July 29, 2019. (tg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
HONEY GANTT
v.
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL NO. 5:18-CV-5063
ANDREW M. SAUL, 1 Commissioner,
Social Security Administration
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, Honey Gantt, 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 October 18,
2015, alleging an inability to work since August 18, 2014, due to back problems,
achondroplasia dwarfism, neck problems, limb numbness, sleep apnea, arthritis, knee pain,
joint pain, restless legs, and severe headaches. (Tr. 223, 231, 241, 250). For DIB purposes,
1
Andrew M. Saul, has been appointed to serve as Commissioner of Social Security, and is substituted as Defendant,
pursuant to Rule 25(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
1
Plaintiff maintained insured status through December 31, 2019. (Tr. 223, 231, 241, 250). An
administrative hearing was held on November 17, 2016, at which Plaintiff and a vocational
expert testified. (Tr. 191-220).
By written decision dated April 20, 2017, the ALJ found that during the relevant time
period, Plaintiff had severe impairments of congenital dwarfism; degenerative disc disease
from T12-S1 status post decompressive laminectomy; and osteoarthritis of the cervical spine
and thoracic spine. (Tr. 23). 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. 24). The ALJ found that Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity (RFC)
to perform sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR §§ 404.1567(a) and 416.967(a), except that
she can only occasionally perform overhead reaching and can only occasionally bend, stoop,
and/or squat. (Tr. 24). With the help of a vocational expert (VE), the ALJ determined that
Plaintiff was capable of performing her past relevant work as a telemarketer as that job was
actually and generally performed. (Tr. 28). The ALJ concluded that the Plaintiff had not been
under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from August 18, 2014, the alleged
onset date, through the date of the decision. (Tr. 29).
Plaintiff then requested a review of the hearing decision by the Appeals Council, but
the request was denied on February 9, 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. 5).
Both parties have filed appeal briefs, and the case is now ready for decision. (Docs. 13, 14).
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
2
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
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 29th day of July, 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?