IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FORT SMITH DIVISION

DONNIE G. BROMLEY, JR. PLAINTIFF

v. CIVIL NO. 23-2004

MARTIN J. O’MALLEY,1 Commissioner Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, Donnie G. Bromley, Jr., brings this action pursuant to

(g), seeking judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (Commissioner) denying his claims for 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 his current applications for DIB and SSI on February 27, 2020, and March 6, 2020, respectively, alleging an inability to work since December 16, 2019, due to Type II diabetes, peripheral neuropathy, and thick heart walls. (Tr. 72, 194, 196). An administrative telephonic hearing was held on March 11, 2021, at which Plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified. (Tr. 36-67).

1 Martin J. O’Malley, has been appointed to serve as Commissioner of Social Security Administration and is substituted as Defendant, pursuant to Rule 25(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. By written decision dated January 5, 2022, the ALJ found that during the relevant time period, Plaintiff had an impairment or combination of impairments that were severe. (Tr. 17). Specifically, the ALJ found Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: osteoarthritis/degenerative disc disease of the cervical and lumbar spine; diabetes mellitus with

polyneuropathy; polyarthralgia; grade 1 diastolic dysfunction; and hypertension. However, after reviewing all 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. 17). 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 he can lift and carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently; stand and walk six hours out of an eight-hour day; sit six hours out of an eight-hour workday; push and pull within the aforementioned lifting and carrying limits; frequently handle and finger bilaterally; and occasionally operate foot controls bilaterally.

(Tr. 17). With the help of a vocational expert, the ALJ determined Plaintiff could perform work as a cashier II, a small products assembler, and a power screwdriver operator. (Tr. 26). Plaintiff then requested a review of the hearing decision by the Appeals Council, who after reviewing additional evidence submitted by Plaintiff denied that request on November 8, 2022. (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. 4). Both parties have filed appeal briefs, and the case is now ready for decision. (ECF Nos. 11, 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). Plaintiff raises the following issues on appeal: 1) The RFC is inconsistent with the evidence; and 2) The ALJ made improper Step Five findings. (ECF No. 11). Defendant argues the ALJ properly considered all the evidence, and 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 light work with limitations, the ALJ considered the medical assessments of non- examining agency medical consultants; Plaintiff’s subjective complaints; and his medical records. While Plaintiff disagrees with the ALJ’s RFC determination, after reviewing the record as a whole, the Court finds Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of showing a more restrictive RFC. See Perks v. Astrue,

(8th Cir. 2012) (burden of persuasion to demonstrate RFC and prove disability remains on claimant). The Court finds substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s RFC determination for the time period in question. With respect to the ALJ’s Step Five determination, the Court finds that the vocational expert's opinion constitutes substantial evidence supporting the ALJ's conclusion that Plaintiff's impairments did not preclude him from performing work as a cashier II, a small products assembler, and a power screwdriver operator. Goffv. Barnhart,

(8th Cir. 2005) (testimony from vocational expert based on properly phrased hypothetical question constitutes substantial evidence). 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 17th day of January 2024.

/s/ heh Comatack HON. CHRISTY COMSTOCK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE