Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-01554/USCOURTS-ca4-19-01554-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 19-1554

EMILY STERLING

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security Administration,

 Defendant - Appellee.

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

Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:17-cv-02556-DCN)

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

Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dana W. Duncan, DUNCAN DISABILITY LAW, S.C., Nekoosa, Wisconsin, for 

Appellant. Sherri A. Lydon, United States Attorney, Marshall Prince, Assistant United 

States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South 

Carolina; Eric Kressman, Regional Chief Counsel, Jordana Cooper, Senior Attorney, 

Shannon Petty, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL 

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-1554 Doc: 31 Filed: 03/27/2020 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Emily Ruth Sterling appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation 

of the magistrate judge and upholding the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of 

Sterling’s applications for 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).

On appeal, Sterling challenges only the portion of the district court’s order 

upholding the decision of the Commissioner that the new evidence Sterling submitted to 

the Appeals Council did not require remand to the ALJ. We have reviewed the record and 

perceive no reversible error. We conclude that the new evidence Sterling submitted to the 

Appeals Council did not require remand to the ALJ, nor did the Appeals Council err in 

denying Sterling’s request for review. Meyer v. Astrue, 662 F.3d 700, 704-05 (4th Cir. 

2011) (holding that Appeals Council may grant review based on additional evidence if 

evidence is new, material, and relates to relevant time period); see Wilkins v. Sec’y, Dep’t 

of Health & Human Servs., 953 F.2d 93, 96 (4th Cir. 1991) (en banc) (stating that evidence 

is material if there is reasonable probability that it would have changed outcome before 

ALJ). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment upholding the denial of 

benefits. Sterling v. Saul, No. 2:17-cv-02556-DCN (D.S.C. Mar. 22, 2019). We dispense 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-1554 Doc: 31 Filed: 03/27/2020 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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: 19-1554 Doc: 31 Filed: 03/27/2020 Pg: 3 of 3