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

EBONY L. PORTER PLAINTIFF

v. CIVIL NO. 24-5084

MARTIN J. O’MALLEY, Commissioner Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, Ebony L. Porter, brings this action pursuant to

(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) benefits 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

(g). Plaintiff protectively filed her current applications for DIB and SSI on July 12, 2021, alleging an inability to work since July 4, 2021, due to a hip replacement due to a car wreck. (Tr. 49, 197, 199). An administrative telephonic hearing was held on January 19, 2023, at which Plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified. (Tr. 31-46). By written decision dated April 19, 2023, the ALJ found that during the relevant time period, Plaintiff had an impairment or combination of impairments that were severe. (Tr. 12). Specifically, the ALJ found Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: a left hip replacement, generalized osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, and obesity. However, after reviewing all of the evidence presented, the ALJ determined that 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. 13). The ALJ found Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to: [P]erform sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(a) and 416.967(a) except that she will need a cane to ambulate.

(Tr. 13). With the help of a vocational expert, the ALJ determined Plaintiff could perform work as a charge account clerk, an order clerk, and a call out operator. (Tr. 18). Plaintiff then requested a review of the hearing decision by the Appeals Council, who denied that request on February 8, 2024. (Tr. 1-6). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed this action. (ECF No. 2). This case is before the undersigned pursuant to the consent of the parties. (ECF No. 5). Both parties have filed appeal briefs, and the case is now ready for decision. (ECF Nos. 9, 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,

(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,

(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,

(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,

(8th Cir. 2000). In her appeal brief, Plaintiff claims the ALJ’s disability decision is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. In making this claim, Plaintiff argues the following issue on appeal: The ALJ failed to create an RFC supported by medical evidence of Plaintiff's ability to function in the workplace. (ECF No. 9). Defendant argues the ALJ properly considered all the evidence, and that the decision is supported by substantial evidence. (ECF No. 13). The Court has reviewed the entire transcript and the parties’ briefs and finds that substantial evidence of record supports the ALJ’s determination. In determining that Plaintiff maintained the RFC to perform sedentary work with the use ofa cane, the ALJ considered the medical assessments of the non-examining agency medical consultants; Plaintiffs subjective complaints; and her medical records. While Plaintiff disagrees with the ALJ’s RFC determination, after reviewing the record, the Court finds Plaintiff failed to meet her burden of showing a more restrictive RFC. See Perks vy. Astrue,

(8th Cir. 2012) (burden of persuasion to demonstrate RFC and prove disability remains on claimant). For the reasons stated in the ALJ’s well-reasoned opinion, the Court finds Plaintiff's arguments 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,

(W.D. Mo. Oct. 31, 2008) (summarily affirming ALJ’s denial of disability benefits), aff'd,

(8th Cir. 2010). DATED this 11th day of October 2024.

isi_( Asstt _Comalack CHRISTY COMSTOCK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE