Morris v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
ALEXIS D. MORRIS 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	CIVIL NO. 25-5147
FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner
Social Security Administration 	DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, Alexis D. Morris, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(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) and supplemental security income (SSI) benefits under the provisions of Titles II and XVI
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
42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Plaintiff protectively filed her current applications for DIB and SSI on July 7, 2022,
alleging an inability to work since June 1, 2017,1 due to fibromyalgia, knee problems, thyroid
problems, hearing loss, migraines, obesity, scoliosis, arthritis, carpal tunnel syndrome, fainting
spells, 	nasal 	problems, 	trichotillomania, 	bipolar 	disorder, 	depression 	post-traumatic 	stress
disorder, social anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, panic attacks, and borderline personality
disorder. (Tr. 102, 247, 254). For DIB purposes, Plaintiff maintained insured status through
1 Plaintiff, through her counsel, amended her alleged onset date to June 1, 2022. (Tr. 25, 51, 295-
296).
Case 5:25-cv-05147-CDC Document 11 Filed 02/19/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
September 30, 2023. (Tr. 28, 260). An administrative telephonic hearing was held on February 1,
2024, at which Plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified. (Tr. 49-76)
By written decision dated May 31, 2024, the ALJ found that during the relevant time
period, Plaintiff had an impairment or combination of impairments that were severe. (Tr. 28).
Specifically, the ALJ found Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: hearing loss,
osteoarthritic changes of the bilateral knees, idiopathic osteoarthritis, lumbar radiculopathy,
fibromyalgia, obesity, mood disorder, anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and
unspecified personality disorder. 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. 28). The ALJ found Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to:
[P]erform sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(a) and 416.967(a) except
she can occasionally climb ramps or stairs, but can never climb ladders, ropes or
scaffolds. The claimant can also occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, and
crawl. Additionally, she is limited to frequent hearing on the right. The claimant
must also avoid even moderate exposure to hazards such as dangerous machinery
and unprotected heights. Further, she can perform work where interpersonal contact
is incidental to the work performed, e.g. assembly work, and where the complexity
of tasks is learned and performed by rote with few variables, little judgment, and
required supervision that is simple, direct, and concrete.
(Tr. 31-32). With the help of a vocational expert, the ALJ determined Plaintiff could perform work
as an addresser, an eyeglass frame polisher and a document preparer. (Tr. 39).
Plaintiff then requested a review of the hearing decision by the Appeals Council, who
denied that request on May 7, 2025. (Tr. 1-6). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed this action. (ECF No.
2). This case is before the undersigned pursuant to the consent of the parties. (ECF No. 5). Both
parties have filed appeal briefs, and the case is now ready for decision. (ECF Nos. 9, 10).
Case 5:25-cv-05147-CDC Document 11 Filed 02/19/26 Page 2 of 5 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).
In her appeal brief, Plaintiff claims the ALJ’s disability decision is not supported by
substantial evidence. In making this claim, Plaintiff argues the following issue on appeal: 1) The
ALJ improperly disregarded Plaintiff’s allegations regarding symptoms and limitations related to
her fibromyalgia. (ECF No. 9). Defendant argues the ALJ properly considered all the evidence,
and the decision is supported by substantial evidence. (ECF No. 10).
In order to have insured status under the Act, an individual is required to have twenty
quarters of coverage in each forty-quarter period ending with the first quarter of disability. 42
U.S.C. § 416(i)(3)(B). Plaintiff last met this requirement on September 30, 2023. Regarding
Plaintiff’s application for DIB, the overreaching issue in this case is the question of whether
Plaintiff was disabled during the relevant time period of June 1, 2022, her amended alleged onset
date of disability, through September 30, 2023, the last date she was in insured status under Title
Case 5:25-cv-05147-CDC Document 11 Filed 02/19/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
II of the Act. To qualify for DIB, Plaintiff must prove that on or before the expiration of her insured
status she was unable to engage in substantial gainful activity due to a medically determinable
physical or mental impairment which is expected to last for at least twelve months or result in
death. Basinger v. Heckler, 725 F.2d 1166, 1168 (8th Cir. 1984).
The Court has reviewed the entire transcript and the parties’ briefs and finds that substantial
evidence of record supports the ALJ’s determination. With respect to Plaintiff’s RFC, the ALJ
considered the medical assessments of treating, examining and non-examining agency medical
consultants, Plaintiff’s subjective complaints, and her medical records when he determined
Plaintiff could perform sedentary work with limitations. With each medical opinion, the ALJ stated
how persuasive he found each opinion and articulated the basis for his finding. The ALJ also took
Plaintiff’s obesity into account when determining her RFC. Heino v. Astrue, 578 F.3d 873, 881-
882 (8th Cir. 2009) (when an ALJ references the claimant's obesity during the claim evaluation
process, such review may be sufficient to avoid reversal). While Plaintiff disagrees with the ALJ’s
RFC determination, after reviewing the record as a whole the Court finds Plaintiff failed to meet
her burden of showing a more restrictive RFC. See Perks v. Astrue, 687 F. 3d 1086, 1092 (8th Cir.
2012) (burden of persuasion to demonstrate RFC and prove disability remains on claimant). The
Court finds substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s RFC determination for the time period in
question.
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, 2008 WL
Case 5:25-cv-05147-CDC Document 11 Filed 02/19/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
4816675 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 31, 2008) (summarily affirming ALJ’s denial of disability benefits),
aff’d, 364 Fed. Appx. 307 (8th Cir. 2010).
DATED this 19th day of February 2026.
/s/_________________________________
CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 5:25-cv-05147-CDC Document 11 Filed 02/19/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>