Samuels v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
SHERLENE SAMUELS, 	PLAINTIFF
vs. 	Civil No. 4:25-cv-04039
FRANK BISIGNANO, 	DEFENDANT
Commissioner, Social Security Administration
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Sherlene Samuels (“Plaintiff”) brings this action pursuant to § 205(g) of Title II of the
Social Security Act (“The Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), 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. 6.) 	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 August 31, 2022. (Tr. 14.) 0F
1 In this application,
Plaintiff alleged being disabled due to low back pain, diabetes, and left knee issues. (Tr. 33-35,
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. 7. 	These references are to the page number of the transcript itself not the ECF page number.
Case 4:25-cv-04039-SGS Document 17 Filed 02/13/26 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
201.) Plaintiff alleged an onset date of April 1, 2011. (Tr. 14.) Plaintiff’s application was denied
initially on December 19, 2022, and again upon reconsideration on May 23, 2023. (Tr. 51, 14.)
Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing on her denied application and this request was
granted. (Tr. 14.) An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) conducted the hearing on April 11, 2024.
(Tr. 27-44.) At this hearing, Plaintiff was present and represented by Greg Giles. Id. Plaintiff and
Vocational Expert (“VE”), Beth Drury, both testified at the hearing. Id.
On June 13, 2024, the ALJ entered an unfavorable decision. (Tr. 14-22.) In this decision,
the ALJ determined Plaintiff met the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through
March 31, 2015. (Tr. 16, Finding 1.) Additionally, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had not engaged
in substantial gainful activity from the alleged onset date of April 1, 2011, through March 31, 2015.
(Tr. 16, Finding 2.)
The ALJ then determined Plaintiff had severe impairments of degenerative disc disease of
the lumbar spine, chondromalacia of the left knee, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, major
depression disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder. (Tr. 16, Finding 3.) Despite being severe,
the ALJ determined Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets
or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments. (Tr. 17, Finding 4.)
The ALJ determined Plaintiff had the Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”) to perform
light work as defined in 20 CFR § 404.1567(b), except she can only occasionally stoop; no
crouching, crawling, or kneeling; and can perform simple 2-3 step tasks. (Tr. 18, Finding 5.)
The ALJ determined Plaintiff was unable to perform any Past Relevant Work (“PRW”).
(Tr. 20, Finding 6.) Additionally, the ALJ determined transferability of job skills is “not an issue
in this case because the claimant’s past relevant work is unskilled.” (Tr. 21, Finding 9.) The ALJ
Case 4:25-cv-04039-SGS Document 17 Filed 02/13/26 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
further determined that through the date last insured, considering Plaintiff’s age, education, work
experience, and RFC, there were jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy
that Plaintiff could have performed, such as marker with 165,320 jobs in the national economy;
assembler with 29,810 jobs in the national economy; and routing clerk with 122,890 jobs in the
national economy. (Tr. 21, Finding 10). Based upon these findings, the ALJ determined Plaintiff
had not been disabled under the Act during the time between April 1, 2011, and March 31, 2015.
(Tr. 22, Finding 11).
On May 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed the present appeal. (ECF No. 2.) Both parties have filed
appeal briefs. (ECF Nos. 11, 16.) 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);
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).
If substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion, the Court cannot reverse simply
because substantial evidence also supports a different outcome. 	Jones v. Astrue, 619 F.3d 963,
968 (8th Cir. 2010); Haley v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 742, 747 (8th Cir. 2001). Therefore, “if after
reviewing the record, the court finds it is possible to draw two inconsistent positions from the
evidence and one of those positions represents the ALJ’s findings, the court must affirm the ALJ’s
decision.” Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 790-91 (8th Cir. 2005); Young v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 1065,
1068 (8th Cir. 2000).
Case 4:25-cv-04039-SGS Document 17 Filed 02/13/26 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
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 prevents him or her from engaging in any substantial gainful activity. See 42 U.S.C.
§§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A), Cox v. Apfel, 160 F.3d 1203, 1206 (8th Cir. 1998). 	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 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 RFC to perform his or her past relevant
work; and (5) if the claimant cannot perform the past work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner
to prove 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 their RFC if the final stage of this analysis is reached.
See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920.
Case 4:25-cv-04039-SGS Document 17 Filed 02/13/26 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
3. 	Discussion:
In her appeal brief, Plaintiff raises the following argument for reversal: the ALJ erred in
finding Plaintiff was capable of work at the light exertional level. 	(ECF No. 11.) 	In response,
Defendant argues the ALJ did not err in any of her findings. (ECF No. 16.)
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).
Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred in evaluating Listing 1.04 by focusing on whether Plaintiff
suffered from a nerve impingement instead of focusing on the other requirements. (ECF No. 11,
p. 9.) 	Additionally, Plaintiff claims she meets the requirements for Listing 1.18 due to medical
records supporting knee weakness, limited range of motion, and swelling, as well as Plaintiff’s
herniated disc. (ECF No. 11, p. 13.)
Case 4:25-cv-04039-SGS Document 17 Filed 02/13/26 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
In this matter, Listing 1.15 was applicable here, not Listing 1.04A as argued by Plaintiff.
Although the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has not specifically addressed this issue, numerous
neighboring courts have explained why the listing in effect at the time of the ALJ’s final decision
applies:
On December 3, 2020, following a notice-and-comment period, the SSA issued rules which
revised the musculoskeletal Listings. See 85 Fed. Reg. 78164, 78164 (Dec. 3, 2020). In
so 	doing, 	the 	SSA 	deleted 	Listing 	1.04A 	and 	created 	new 	Listings 	relevant 	to
musculoskeletal disorders, including Listing 1.15. 	See generally id.; 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404,
Subpt. P, App. 1, § 1.15. On April 2, 2021, the new musculoskeletal Listings took effect
with respect to “applications filed on or after [April 2, 2021], and to claims that are pending
on or after [April 2, 2021].” 85 Fed. Reg. 78164, 78164 (Dec. 3, 2020).
Manuel A. v. Kijakazi, No. 22-2739-BAH, 2023 WL 4664732, at *8 (D. Md. July 20, 2023).
Because revisions in 2021 resulted in Listing 1.15 superseding Listing 1.04A, the
Commissioner 	maintains 	that 	the 	ALJ 	appropriately 	considered 	the 	former 	when
examining.
Ellis v. O’Malley, No. 5:23-CV-00332-RN, 2024 WL 3373510, at *10 (E.D.N.C. May 22, 2024).
Here, Plaintiff filed her disability application on August 31, 2022. 	(Tr. 14.) 	Because
Plaintiff filed her disability application after the SSA issued rules revising the Listings, and thus
deleting Listing 1.04A, the applicable Listing is 1.15 and not 1.04A.
Listing 1.15 requires Plaintiff to establish evidence of radicular distribution of neurological
signs during physical examination, including muscle weakness. 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P., App.
1, § 1.15(B)(1). It also requires medical documentation of a medical need for a “walker, bilateral
canes, or bilateral crutches . . . or a wheeled and seated mobility device involving the use of both
hands.” Id. § 1.15(D)(1). Plaintiff has failed to provide medical documentation supporting either
of these requirements necessary for Listing 1.15.
Case 4:25-cv-04039-SGS Document 17 Filed 02/13/26 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
Plaintiff also argues she meets Listing 1.18 based on imaging and objective tests of her left
knee. 	(ECF No. 11, p. 11.) 	Listing 1.18 requires, in part, an “[i]mpairment-related physical
limitation of musculoskeletal functioning” requiring either a “documented medical need” for an
assistive device or “[a]n inability to use both upper extremities.” See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P,
App. 1, § 1.18(D). The record does not indicate Plaintiff had a documented medical need for an
assistive device, nor has Plaintiff shown an inability to use both upper extremities.
Although Plaintiff claims the ALJ erred in finding Plaintiff capable of work, the ALJ based
her opinion on medical opinions from hospital records from Mercy Hospital, Choctaw Nation
Health Services, Choctaw Nation Health Clinic, and two Disability Determination Explanations
from December 19, 2022 and May 22, 2023. (Tr. 321-678; 45-50; 52-57.)
Finally, Plaintiff argues the ALJ’s hypothetical question to the vocational expert did not
include all of her limitations. After thoroughly reviewing the hearing transcript along with the
entire evidence of record, the Court finds the hypothetical the ALJ posed to the vocational expert
fully set forth the impairments which the ALJ accepted as true, and which were supported by the
record as a whole. Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 794 (8th Cir. 2005). 	Accordingly, the Court
finds 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 marker,
assembler, or routing clerk. Pickney v. Chater, 96 F.3d 294, 296 (8th Cir. 1996) (testimony from
vocational expert based 	on properly phrased 	hypothetical question constitutes substantial
evidence).
Case 4:25-cv-04039-SGS Document 17 Filed 02/13/26 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
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 13th day of February 2026.
/s/ Spencer G. Singleton
HONORABLE SPENCER G. SINGLETON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:25-cv-04039-SGS Document 17 Filed 02/13/26 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>