Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-4_24-cv-04001/USCOURTS-arwd-4_24-cv-04001-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 865
Nature of Suit: Social Security - RSI (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:0405g Review of HHS Decision (RSI)

---

1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

TINA ARCHER PLAINTIFF

 

vs. Civil No. 4:24-cv-04001 

 

MARTIN J. O’MALLEY, DEFENDANT 

Commissioner, Social Security Administration 

 

 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION

Tina Archer (“Plaintiff”) brings this action pursuant to § 205(g) of Title II of the Social 

Security Act (“The Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2010), seeking judicial review of a final decision 

of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) denying her application for

Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the Act. 

 The Parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge to conduct any and all 

proceedings in this case, including conducting the trial, ordering the entry of a final judgment, and 

conducting all post-judgment proceedings. ECF No. 4. Pursuant to this authority, the Court issues 

this memorandum opinion and orders the entry of a final judgment in this matter. 

1. Background: 

Plaintiff filed her disability application on June 30, 2020. (Tr. 17).0F

1

 In this application, 

Plaintiff alleges being disabled due to a missing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) in the right knee, 

a damaged posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) in the right knee, chronic obstructive pulmonary 

disorder (COPD), PTSD, depression, a fusion at L1-S1 with arthritis, a lack of cartilage in the 

1 The docket numbers for this case are referenced by the designation “ECF No. ___.” The 

transcript pages for this case are referenced by the designation “Tr.” and refer to the document 

filed at ECF No. 5. These references are to the page number of the transcript itself not the ECF 

page number. 

Case 4:24-cv-04001-BAB Document 12 Filed 12/06/24 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:

<pageID>
2

knee, anxiety, chronic sinus infections, and migraines. (Tr. 195). Plaintiff alleged an onset date 

of February 15, 2018. (Tr. 17). Plaintiff’s application was denied initially and again upon 

reconsideration. Id. 

Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing on her denied application, and this hearing 

request was granted. (Tr. 101-151). This hearing was held on December 5, 2022. (Tr. 34-55). At 

this hearing, Plaintiff was present, and represented by Greg Giles. Id. Plaintiff and Vocational 

Expert (“VE”), Rigel Macarena Pinon-Sloss testified at the hearing. Id. 

Following the administrative hearing, on March 29, 2023, the ALJ entered an unfavorable 

decision. (Tr. 17-28). In this decision, the ALJ determined Plaintiff last met the insured status of 

the Act on December 31, 2022. (Tr. 19, Finding 1). The ALJ also determined Plaintiff had not 

engaged in substantial gainful activity (“SGA”) from February 15, 2018, through December 31, 

2022. (Tr. 19, Finding 2). 

The ALJ then determined Plaintiff had severe impairments of degenerative disc disease, 

osteoarthritis, status-post right knee arthroscopy, contracture of the right knee joint, post-traumatic 

stress disorder (PTSD), and major depressive disorder. (Tr. 19, Finding 3). Despite being severe, 

the ALJ determined those impairments did not meet or medically equal the requirements of any of 

the Listings of Impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (“Listings”). (Tr. 20, 

Finding 4).

The ALJ considered Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and determined her RFC. (Tr. 22-

27). The ALJ evaluated Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and found the claimed limitations were 

not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record. Id. The ALJ 

also determined Plaintiff retained the RFC to perform to perform sedentary work; including lifting 

10 pounds occasionally and less than 10 pounds frequently; carrying 10 pounds occasionally and 

Case 4:24-cv-04001-BAB Document 12 Filed 12/06/24 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:

<pageID>
3 

less than 10 pounds frequently; sitting for 6 hours, standing and/or walking for a total of 2 hours 

in an 8-hour work day; pushing/pulling consistent with the lifting/carrying capacity; climbing 

ramps and stairs occasionally; never climbing ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; balancing, stooping, 

kneeling, crouching, and crawling occasionally; and further limited to the performance of work 

where interpersonal contact was routine but superficial. Id.

The ALJ then evaluated Plaintiff’s Past Relevant Work (“PRW”). (Tr. 27, Finding 6). The 

ALJ determined Plaintiff was not capable of performing her PRW. Id. However, the ALJ found 

there were jobs in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform. (Tr. 

27, Finding 10). With the help of the VE, the ALJ found Plaintiff could perform the representative 

occupations of (1) security system monitor with approximately 30,000 jobs in the nation, (2) 

document preparer with approximately 39,000 jobs in the nation, and (3) electronics worker with 

approximately 19,000 jobs in the nation. Id. Based upon this finding, the ALJ determined Plaintiff 

had not been disabled under the Act at any time from February 15, 2018, through December 31, 

2022. (Tr. 28, Finding 11). 

On January 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed the present appeal. ECF No. 1. Both Parties have filed 

appeal briefs. ECF Nos. 9, 11. This case is now ready for decision.

2. Applicable Law:

In reviewing this case, the Court is required to determine whether the Commissioner’s 

findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) 

(2010); Ramirez v. Barnhart, 292 F.3d 576, 583 (8th Cir. 2002). Substantial evidence is less than 

a preponderance of the evidence, but it is enough that a reasonable mind would find it adequate to 

support the Commissioner’s decision. See Johnson v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1145, 1147 (8th Cir. 2001). 

As long as there is substantial evidence in the record that supports the Commissioner’s decision,

Case 4:24-cv-04001-BAB Document 12 Filed 12/06/24 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:

<pageID>
4

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. 

See Haley v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 742, 747 (8th Cir. 2001). 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. See Young v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 

1065, 1068 (8th Cir. 2000). 

It is well-established that a claimant for Social Security disability benefits has the burden 

of proving his or her disability by establishing a physical or mental disability that lasted at least 

one year and that prevents him or her from engaging in any substantial gainful activity. See Cox 

v. Apfel, 160 F.3d 1203, 1206 (8th Cir. 1998); 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). The 

Act defines a “physical or mental impairment” as “an impairment that results from anatomical, 

physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are demonstrable by medically acceptable 

clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(3), 1382(3)(c). A plaintiff 

must show that his or her disability, not simply his or her impairment, has lasted for at least twelve 

consecutive months. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A).

To determine whether the adult claimant suffers from a disability, the Commissioner uses 

the familiar five-step sequential evaluation. He determines: (1) whether the claimant is presently 

engaged in a “substantial gainful activity”; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment that 

significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities; (3) 

whether the claimant has an impairment that meets or equals a presumptively disabling impairment

listed in the regulations (if so, the claimant is disabled without regard to age, education, and work 

experience); (4) whether the claimant has the Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) to perform his 

or her past relevant work; and (5) if the claimant cannot perform the past work, the burden shifts 

Case 4:24-cv-04001-BAB Document 12 Filed 12/06/24 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:

<pageID>
5 

to the Commissioner to prove that there are other jobs in the national economy that the claimant 

can perform. See Cox, 160 F.3d at 1206; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)-(f). The fact finder only 

considers the plaintiff’s age, education, and work experience in light of his or her RFC if the final 

stage of this analysis is reached. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920 (2003). 

3. Discussion: 

 In her appeal brief, Plaintiff claims the ALJ’s disability decision is not supported by 

substantial evidence in the record. ECF No. 9. In making this claim, Plaintiff argues the ALJ 

erred (1) in failing to accommodate for Plaintiff’s knee limitations in the RFC determination and

(2) in failing to properly evaluate Plaintiff’s subjective complaints. Id. In response, Defendant 

argues the ALJ did not err in any of her findings. ECF No. 11. 

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 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). 

Case 4:24-cv-04001-BAB Document 12 Filed 12/06/24 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:

<pageID>
6 

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). 

4. Conclusion:

 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that the decision of the ALJ, denying 

benefits to Plaintiff, is supported by substantial evidence, and should be affirmed. A judgment 

incorporating these findings will be entered pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52 and 

58. 

ENTERED this 6th day of December 2024. 

 /s/ Barry A. Bryant HON. BARRY A. BRYANT

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:24-cv-04001-BAB Document 12 Filed 12/06/24 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:

<pageID>