Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-01417/USCOURTS-ca4-19-01417-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1417

DAPHNE REGINA PANNELL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at 

Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (4:17-cv-00025-JLK-JCH)

Submitted: February 27, 2020 Decided: March 10, 2020

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David J. Cortes, Richmond, Virginia; Joel Cunningham, Jr., Halifax, Virginia, for 

Appellant. Eric P. Kressman, Regional Chief Counsel, Stephen Giacchino, Supervisory 

Attorney, Joanne K. Kernicky, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of the General Counsel,

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Sherri A. Lydon, 

United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, Sara B. Winn, Assistant United States 

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-1417 Doc: 33 Filed: 03/10/2020 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Daphne Regina Pannell appeals the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and upholding the Administrative Law Judge’s 

(ALJ) denial of Pannell’s applications for benefit protection during a period of disability, 

disability insurance benefits, and supplemental security income. “In social security 

proceedings, a court of appeals applies the same standard of review as does the district 

court. That is, a reviewing court must uphold the determination when an ALJ has applied 

correct legal standards and the ALJ’s factual findings are supported by substantial 

evidence.” Brown v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 873 F.3d 251, 267 (4th Cir. 2017) (citation 

and internal quotation marks omitted). “Substantial evidence is that which a reasonable 

mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It consists of more than a mere 

scintilla of evidence but may be less than a preponderance.” Pearson v. Colvin, 810 F.3d 

204, 207 (4th Cir. 2015) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “In reviewing for 

substantial evidence, we do not undertake to reweigh conflicting evidence, make credibility 

determinations, or substitute our judgment for that of the ALJ. Where conflicting evidence 

allows reasonable minds to differ as to whether a claimant is disabled, the responsibility 

for that decision falls on the ALJ.” Hancock v. Astrue, 667 F.3d 470, 472 (4th Cir. 2012) 

(brackets, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted).

We have reviewed the record and perceive no reversible error. The ALJ applied the 

correct legal standards in evaluating Pannell’s claims for benefits, and the ALJ’s factual

findings are supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s 

judgment upholding the denial of benefits. Pannell v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 4:17-cvUSCA4 Appeal: 19-1417 Doc: 33 Filed: 03/10/2020 Pg: 2 of 3
3

00025-JLK-JCH (W.D. Va., Feb. 26, 2019). We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 19-1417 Doc: 33 Filed: 03/10/2020 Pg: 3 of 3