Case ID: f-appx_50/html/0182-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Stephen E. GIBSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 02-1566.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 18, 2002.
    Decided Nov. 18, 2002.
    Deborah K. Garton, Hensley, Muth, Garton & Hayes, Bluefield, West Virginia, for Appellant. James A. Winn, Regional Chief, Region III, Patricia M. Smith, Deputy Chief, Shawn C. Carver, Assistant Regional, Office of the General, Social Security Administration, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Sara B. Winn, Assistant United States Attorney, United States Attorney’s Office, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Stephen E. Gibson appeals the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner’s denial of social security disability and supplemental security income benefits. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error.

We must uphold the district court’s disability determination if it is supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2000); Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir.1990). Contrary to Gibson’s argument, the ALJ properly credited the opinions of non-examining physicians over that of his treating physician in this case, as the latter’s opinion is unsupported by the clinical evidence and is inconsistent with other substantial evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(d)(2), 416.967(d)(2) (2000); Craig v. Chafer, 76 F.3d 585, 590 (4th Cir.1996). Moreover, while we agree with the district court that Gibson’s new evidence would not have affected the ALJ’s decision, inasmuch as it lacked objective support, we note that because the evidence did not relate to the period preceding the ALJ’s decision, Gibson is not entitled to have the evidence considered. See Wilkins v. Secretary of Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 953 F.2d 93, 96 (4th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Gibson v. Barnhart, No. CA-01-101-1 (W.D.Va. Apr. 25, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.