Waldon v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
HEATHER WALDON 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	CIVIL NO. 24-cv-02103
LELAND DUDEK,0F
1 Acting Commissioner 	DEFENDANT
Social Security Administration
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, Heather Waldon, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial
review of a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security Administration (Commissioner)
denying 	her 	claim 	for 	a period 	of 	disability, 	disability insurance benefits 	(“DIB”), 	and
supplemental security income (“SSI”) benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act
(hereinafter “the Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). 	In this judicial review, the
Court must determine whether there is substantial evidence in the administrative record to support
the Commissioner’s decision. See U.S.C. § 405(g).
Plaintiff protectively filed her applications for DIB and SSI on January 13, 2022. (Tr. 60).
In her applications, Plaintiff alleged disability beginning on August 31, 2021, due to back disc
issues and arthritis in her back. (Tr. 60, 348). An administrative hearing was held via telephone on
August 22, 2023, at which Plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified. (Tr. 163–198). A
vocational expert (“VE”) also testified. Id.
1 Leland Dudek has been appointed to serve as the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration, and is substituted as Defendant, pursuant to Rule 25(d)(1) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.
Case 2:24-cv-02103-CDC Document 15 Filed 05/05/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
On October 19, 2023, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision. (Tr. 57–80). The ALJ found
that Plaintiff met the insured status requirements of the Act through December 31, 2026. (Tr. 63).
The ALJ found Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: chronic low back syndrome
secondary to herniated nucleus pulposus at L4/5 and L5/S1 with right-sided sciatica, spondylosis
of the thoracic spine, osteoarthritis, asthma, depression, and anxiety. (Tr. 63). The ALJ found
Plaintiff’s impairments did not meet or medically equal the severity of any of the impairments
listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (Tr. 63–65). 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
limited to working in a controlled environment with no exposure to dust, fumes, or
smoke in concentrated amounts or temperature extremes; limited to jobs involving
simple tasks with no detailed or complex instructions and only occasional
interaction with the public.
(Tr. 65–72).
The ALJ found Plaintiff could not perform any of her past relevant work but, based upon
the testimony of the VE, found that Plaintiff could perform the representative occupations of office
helper, merchandise marker, and mail sorter. (Tr. 72–73). The ALJ further found that Plaintiff
could perform sedentary level exertion jobs with the same limitations included in the RFC
including tube clerk, surveillance systems monitor, and document preparer. (Tr. 73). The ALJ
found Plaintiff was not disabled from August 31, 2021, through October 19, 2023, the date of the
decision. (Tr. 73–74).
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. 12, 14).
Case 2:24-cv-02103-CDC Document 15 Filed 05/05/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
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 raises the following points on appeal: 1) whether the RFC finding was contrary to
the evidence as Plaintiff would not be capable of performing light work and required an assistive
device; 2) whether the ALJ erred in analyzing Plaintiff’s subjective complaints; and 3) whether
the ALJ erred at step five due to an incomplete hypothetical to the VE. (ECF No. 12). Defendant
argues that the ALJ properly evaluated Plaintiff’s RFC, including her cane use, and her subjective
complaints. (ECF No. 14). Defendant argues that the ALJ’s hypotheticals to the VE reflected the
ALJ’s properly formed and supported RFC findings. Id.
The Court has reviewed the entire transcript and the parties’ briefs and agrees with
Defendant’s assertion that this decision was supported by substantial evidence. While the ALJ
erroneously stated that the cane was never prescribed, Plaintiff has not shown medical necessity
regarding the use of her cane. (Tr. 69, 162). Even with the evidence that Plaintiff frequently used
Case 2:24-cv-02103-CDC Document 15 Filed 05/05/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
her cane, that is not enough to show the cane was medically necessary as opposed to preferred.
See Patricia M. v. Saul, No. 18-CV-3462 (DSD/HB), 2020 WL 3633218, at *7 (D. Minn. Feb. 5,
2020), 	report 	and 	recommendation 	adopted 	sub 	nom. 	McArdell 	v. 	Saul, 	No. 	CV 	18-
3462(DSD/HB), 2020 WL 1951748 (D. Minn. Apr. 23, 2020). For the reasons stated in the ALJ’s
opinion and in the Defendant’s brief, the Court finds Plaintiff’s arguments on appeal to be
unpersuasive 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).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of May 2025.
.
HON. CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:24-cv-02103-CDC Document 15 Filed 05/05/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>