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

MARLENE D. FULMER PLAINTIFF

v. CIVIL NO. 23-2036

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, Marlene D. Fulmer, 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) under the provisions of Title II 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 application for DIB on April 2, 2020, alleging an inability to work since February 19, 2020, due to generalized anxiety disorder, panic attacks, social phobia, chronic back pain, fibromyalgia, neck/shoulder pain, fatigue, right leg pain, sciatica, and spinal spurring. (Tr. 154, 281). An administrative telephonic hearing was held on December 1, 2021, at which Plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified. (Tr. 129-151).

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 March 25, 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: post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, a personality disorder

with cluster B traits, obesity, diverticulitis, and degenerative changes of the cervical and lumbar spine. 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. 18). The ALJ found Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to: [P]erform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) except she can occasionally climb, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl. In addition, she is limited to work consisting of simple, routine, and repetitive tasks; with only simple work-related decisions and few, if any, workplace changes; and no more than incidental contact with co-workers, supervisors, and the general public.

(Tr. 26). With the help of a vocational expert, the ALJ determined Plaintiff could perform work as a housekeeping cleaner, a garment sorter, and a warehouse checker. (Tr. 29). 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 January 20, 2023. (Tr. 1-7). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed this action. (ECF No. 3). 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. 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,

(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 argues the following issues on appeal: 1) The ALJ improperly assessed medical opinions; 2) The evidence does not support the ALJ’s RFC determination; and 3) The ALJ made improper Step Five findings. (ECF No. 13). Defendant argues the ALJ properly considered all the evidence, and that the decision is supported by substantial evidence. (ECF No. 14). 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 treating and examining medical providers; the medical assessments of the non-examining agency medical consultants; Plaintiff’s 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 v. Astrue,

(8th Cir. 2012) (burden of persuasion to demonstrate RFC and prove disability remains on claimant). 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 her from performing work as a housekeeping cleaner, a garment sorter, and a warehouse checker. Goff'v. 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 5th day of April 2024.

isi ( Ansty _Comateck CHRISTY COMSTOCK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE