Jackson v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
AMBER JACKSON, 	PLAINTIFF
vs. 	Civil No. 4:25-cv-04069
FRANK BISIGNANO, 	DEFENDANT
Commissioner, Social Security Administration
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Amber Jackson (“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
Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI 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 October 28, 2021. (Tr. 94.)0F
1 In this application,
Plaintiff alleged being disabled due to brain injury, memory loss, fibromyalgia, degenerative bone
and joint disease, manic depression with psychotic issues, bipolar, paranoid schizophrenia, HBP,
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-04069-SGS Document 14 Filed 04/27/26 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
diabetes, PTSD, and panic disorder. (Tr. 314.) Plaintiff alleged an onset date of October 1, 2021.
(Tr. 94.) 	Plaintiff’s application was denied initially on January 10, 2023, and again upon
reconsideration on November 27, 2023. Id.
Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing on her denied application, and this request
was granted. (Tr. 94.) An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) conducted the hearing on June 6,
2024. 	(Tr. 143-166.) At this hearing, Plaintiff was present and represented by Greg Giles. 	Id.
Plaintiff and Vocational Expert (“VE”), Karyl Kuuttila, both testified at the hearing. Id.
On August 29, 2024, the ALJ entered an unfavorable decision. 	(Tr. 94-105.) 	In this
decision, the ALJ determined Plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since October
28, 2021. 	(Tr. 96, Finding 1.) 	Additionally, the ALJ determined Plaintiff has the severe
impairments of major depressive disorder with psychosis, fibromyalgia, diabetes mellitus,
osteoarthritis of the right ankle, obesity, and epilepsy. (Tr. 96, Finding 2.) 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. 97, Finding 3.)
The ALJ then determined Plaintiff has the Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”) to
perform less than light work. (Tr. 99, Finding 4.) Specifically, the ALJ found the Plaintiff can
lift, carry, push, and pull up to 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently.
[Plaintiff] can stand and/or walk and sit for 6 hours each in an 8-hour workday.
[Plaintiff] cannot climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds, but can occasionally climb
ramps and stairs. [Plaintiff] can frequently stoop and occasionally balance, kneel,
crouch, and crawl. [Plaintiff] must avoid all exposure to workplace hazards such as
unprotected heights and moving mechanical parts. [Plaintiff] can understand,
remember, and carry out simple instructions but not at a specific production rate
such as on an assembly line. [Plaintiff] cannot tolerate any interaction with the
public but can tolerate occasional interaction with co-workers and supervisors.
[Plaintiff] can tolerate occasional changes in a routine environment.
Case 4:25-cv-04069-SGS Document 14 Filed 04/27/26 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Id. The ALJ also determined Plaintiff has no Past Relevant Work (“PRW”). (Tr. 103, Finding 5.)
Accordingly, the ALJ determined transferability of job skills is not an issue because Plaintiff does
not have any PRW. (Tr. 103, Finding 8.)
The ALJ further determined that considering Plaintiff’s age, education, work experience,
and RFC, there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff can
perform, such as a Price Marker with approximately 129,000 positions in the national economy, a
Garment Packager with approximately 65,000 positions in the national economy, and a Mailroom
Clerk with approximately 100,000 positions in the national economy. Based upon these findings,
the ALJ determined Plaintiff had not been disabled under the act since the application was filed on
October 28, 2021. (Tr. 104, Finding 10.)
On August 19, 2025, Plaintiff filed the present appeal. 	(ECF No. 2.) 	Both parties have
filed appeal briefs. (ECF Nos. 11, 13.) 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
Case 4:25-cv-04069-SGS Document 14 Filed 04/27/26 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
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).
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 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 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
Case 4:25-cv-04069-SGS Document 14 Filed 04/27/26 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
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.
3. 	Discussion
In her appeal brief, Plaintiff raised the following arguments for reversal: (1) the ALJ’s
mental assessment was not supported by substantial evidence and (2) the ALJ failed to consider
Plaintiff’s need to take frequent breaks. (ECF No. 11.) In response, Defendant argues the ALJ
properly evaluated medical evidence and did not err in any of his findings. (ECF No. 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, 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).
Although Plaintiff claims the ALJ’s mental assessment is not supported by substantial
evidence, after thoroughly reviewing the record, the ALJ based his decision surrounding Plaintiff’s
mental abilities based on medical opinions from the medical records from Levi Hospital,
Case 4:25-cv-04069-SGS Document 14 Filed 04/27/26 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
Southwest AR Counseling & Mental Health Center, Howard Memorial Hospital, Dr. Randy D.
Walker, M.D., and CE Psychology. (Tr. 533-534; 545-548; 558; 720-748; 752-753; 848; and 868-
874.)
“To meet a listing, a claimant must show that he or she meets all of the criteria for the listed
impairment.” Blackburn v. Colvin, 761 F.3d 853, 858 (8th Cir. 2014). 	Plaintiff claims the ALJ
improperly found her impairments did not meet the requirements of Listing 12.04 and failed to
assess Listings 12.02, 12.06, 12.07, 12.08, and 12.15. 	ECF No. 11 at 3-12. The “paragraph B”
criteria of these Listings require a demonstration of an extreme limitation of one, or marked
limitation of two, of the following areas of mental functioning (1) understanding, remembering,
and 	applying 	information; 	(2) 	interacting 	with 	others; 	(3) 	concentration, 	persistence, 	or
maintaining peace; and (4) adapting or managing oneself.
Here, the ALJ specifically found Plaintiff’s mental impairments did not meet Listing 12.04
because Plaintiff only had moderate limitations in all of these areas of functioning. (Tr. 97-98).
Upon review, the Court finds no basis for reversal on this issue. The ALJ discussed at length his
findings in support by discussing Plaintiff’s relevant medical history, functioning, and testimony.
Id. 	In all four domains, the ALJ acknowledged Plaintiff had some level of impairment, but not
ever greater than a moderate limitation.
Although Plaintiff argues the ALJ failed to properly assess the paragraph B criteria of
Listings 12.02, 12.06, 12.07, 12.08, and 12.15, there was no substantial evidence in the record
showing Plaintiff’s condition was severe enough to meet or equal that of a listed impairment as set
forth in the Listing of Impairments. See 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app.1. Plaintiff has the burden
of establishing that her impairment(s) meet or equal an impairment set out in the Listing of
Case 4:25-cv-04069-SGS Document 14 Filed 04/27/26 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
Impairments. 	See Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530-31 (1990). 	Plaintiff has not met this
burden.
While the ALJ did not analyze these Listings specifically, he analyzed the paragraph B
criteria of Listing 12.04 which is the same criteria for these other Listings. 	As previously
mentioned, the ALJ found Plaintiff only had moderate limitations in each of the areas of
functioning. The ALJ’s finding that the paragraph B criteria under Listing 12.04 was supported
by substantial evidence and therefore further analysis is unnecessary of any Listings that require a
finding of paragraph B to be met, including Listings 12.02, 12.06, 12.07, 12.08, and 12.15. Each
of those listings utilize the same paragraph B as Listing 12.04, so any error would be harmless.
Plaintiff also claims the ALJ failed to consider Plaintiff’s need to take frequent breaks. This
claim was based upon a medical source statement completed by nurse practitioner Alexandra
Davis. 	(Tr. 905-908). 	Nurse Davis stated Plaintiff would need more than normal break times
throughout the workday. 	(Tr. 905). The ALJ discussed this opinion and found it unpersuasive.
(Tr. 102). The ALJ properly found Nurse Davis’s medical source statement was not supported by
any clinical, diagnostic or laboratory findings. Id. The ALJ also found this opinion inconsistent
with her treatment notes as treatment notes did not indicate Plaintiff would need to take more
breaks than normal. Id.
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 holds Plaintiff’s
arguments on appeal to be without merit and concludes 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).
Case 4:25-cv-04069-SGS Document 14 Filed 04/27/26 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 is AFFIRMED. 	A judgment
incorporating these findings will be entered pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52 and
58.
ENTERED this 27th day of April 2026.
/s/ Spencer G. Singleton
HONORABLE SPENCER G. SINGLETON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:25-cv-04069-SGS Document 14 Filed 04/27/26 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>