ERIN L. WIEDEMANN, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff, Mary E. Hamm, 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 claim supplemental security income (SSI) benefits under the provisions of Title 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.
Plaintiff protectively filed her current application for SSI on January 21, 2015, alleging an inability to work since December 15, 2012, due to back problems, heart problems, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), knee problems and Rheumatoid arthritis. (Tr. 80, 201). An administrative hearing was held on November 30, 2015, at which Plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified. (Tr. 32-59).
By written decision dated January 20, 2016, the ALJ found Plaintiff was not disabled prior to November 11, 2015, but that Plaintiff became disabled on November 11, 2015, and remained disabled through the date of the decision. (Tr. 16). Specifically, the ALJ found that since December 15, 2012, Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: obesity; lumbar degenerative disc disease with radiculopathy and failed back syndrome; chronic pain syndrome; right greater than left hip bursitis; H pylori and erosive gastritis; hypertension; and (COPD) and/or asthma. (Tr. 18). The ALJ found that beginning on the established onset date of disability, November 11, 2015, Plaintiff had the additional severe impairment of coronary artery disease (CAD) status/post stent placement. (Tr. 18). However, after reviewing all of the evidence presented, the ALJ determined that since December 15, 2012, 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. 19). The ALJ found that prior to November 11, 2015, the date Plaintiff became disabled, Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to:
(Tr. 19). With the help of a vocational expert, the ALJ found Plaintiff was not disabled prior to November 11, 2015, as she was able to perform work as a cashier II and a marking clerk. (Tr. 24).
Plaintiff then requested a review of the hearing decision by the Appeals Council, which denied that request on November 28, 2016. (Tr. 1-4). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed this action. (Doc. 1). This case is before the undersigned pursuant to the consent of the parties. (Doc. 6). Both parties have filed appeal briefs, and the case is now ready for decision. (Docs. 12, 13).
This Court's role is to determine whether the Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.
The Court has reviewed the entire transcript and the parties' briefs. For the reasons stated in the ALJ's well-reasoned opinion and the Government's brief, the Court finds Plaintiff's arguments on appeal 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.