Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-23-01575/USCOURTS-ca4-23-01575-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1575

MEGAN WILSON,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

MARTIN J. O'MALLEY, Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant – Appellee.

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

Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:22-cv-00087-RJC)

Submitted: September 11, 2024 Decided: December 31, 2024

Before AGEE, RUSHING, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: George C. Piemonte, MARTIN, JONES & PIEMONTE, Charlotte, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Brian C. O’Donnell, Associate General Counsel, David E. 

Somers, III, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland; SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

Baltimore, Maryland; Dena J. King, United States Attorney, David N. Mervis, Special 

Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1575 Doc: 36 Filed: 12/31/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM: 

Petitioner Megan Wilson appeals the district court’s denial of Social Security 

disability benefits. She argues that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) erred under 

Shelley C. v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 61 F.4th 341 (4th Cir. 2023), 

by relying on objective findings from mental status examinations to discredit her subjective 

testimony about her symptoms. Because Wilson’s agency proceedings took place before 

Shelley C. was decided, the ALJ did not have the opportunity to consider its application to 

the instant case. And because Shelley C. was decided after briefing was complete in the 

district court, Wilson did not develop any arguments in that court about Shelley C.’s 

application beyond advising the court of Shelley C.’s existence. 

We are “a court of review, not of first view.” Lovelace v. Lee, 472 F.3d 174, 203

(4th Cir. 2006) (quoting Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 718 n.7 (2005)). In keeping

with our understanding that the ALJ “should have the first opportunity to perform the 

applicable analysis,” we vacate the district court’s denial of benefits and remand to the 

Social Security Administration for consideration in light of Shelley C. Cf. Fusaro v. 

Cogan, 930 F.3d 241, 263–64 (4th Cir. 2019) (remanding to trial court for initial 

consideration where issue had not been developed below); See v. Wash. Metro. Area 

Transit Auth., 36 F.3d 375, 383–84 (4th Cir. 1994) (citing Dir., Off. of Workers’ Comp. 

Programs, U.S. Dep’t of Lab. v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 676 F.2d 

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1575 Doc: 36 Filed: 12/31/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
3

110, 115 (4th Cir. 1982)) (“[B]ecause the ALJ is the factfinder, the [Benefits Review 

Board] should not rule upon an issue before the ALJ has had an opportunity to consider it 

first.”).

VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1575 Doc: 36 Filed: 12/31/2024 Pg: 3 of 3