UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-2337

DEBRA PACE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Commissioner of Social Security Administration,

Defendant - Appellee.

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

Greenville. David C. Norton, District Judge. (6:19-cv-01186-DCN)

Submitted: July 22, 2022 Decided: August 12, 2022

Before RICHARDSON and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Dana W. Duncan, DUNCAN DISABILITY LAW, S.C., Nekoosa, 

Wisconsin, for Appellant. Brian C. O’Donnell, Regional Chief Counsel, Victor Pane, 

Supervisory Attorney, Jordana Cooper, Senior Attorney, Peter Colonna-Romano, Special 

Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; M. Rhett DeHart, Acting United States 

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNRY, Columbia, South Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2337 Doc: 54 Filed: 08/12/2022 Pg: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM:

Debra Pace appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the 

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

application for disability insurance benefits. “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) (cleaned up). “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) (cleaned up). “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) 

(cleaned up).

In making a disability determination, the ALJ must consider the medical opinions 

of record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b) (2022). “Medical opinions are statements from 

acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature of and severity of [the 

claimant’s] impairment(s), including [her] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [she] 

can still do despite impairment(s), and [her] physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. 

§ 404.1527(a)(1) (2022). For claims filed before March 27, 2017, an ALJ is normally 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2337 Doc: 54 Filed: 08/12/2022 Pg: 2 of 4
3

required to accord more weight to the medical opinion of an examining source than that of 

a nonexamining source when evaluating conflicting medical opinion evidence. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 404.1527(c)(1) (2022); Brown, 873 F.3d at 268. “Accordingly, the treating physician 

rule requires that ALJs give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion . . . if that 

opinion is (1) well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic 

techniques and (2) not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.” 

Arakas v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 983 F.3d 83, 106 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). However, “the ALJ holds the discretion to give less weight to the 

testimony of a treating physician in the face of persuasive contrary evidence.” Mastro v. 

Apfel, 270 F.3d 171, 178 (4th Cir. 2001).

When the ALJ does not give controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion, he 

must consider a nonexclusive list of factors to determine the weight to be given all medical 

opinions in the record: (1) examining relationship; (2) treatment relationship; (3) 

supportability of the physician’s opinion; (4) consistency of the opinion with the record; 

and (5) specialization of the physician. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) (2022); Arakas, 

983 F.3d at 106. The ALJ is not required to discuss each factor in his decision. See 

Dowling v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 986 F.3d 377, 385 (4th Cir. 2021). However, “it 

must nonetheless be apparent from the ALJ’s decision that he meaningfully considered 

each of the factors before deciding how much weight to give the opinion,” id. (emphasis 

omitted), and he “must include a narrative discussion describing how the evidence supports 

his explanation of the varying degrees of weight he gave to differing opinions concerning 

the claimant’s conditions and limitations,” Woods v. Berryhill, 888 F.3d 686, 695 (4th Cir. 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2337 Doc: 54 Filed: 08/12/2022 Pg: 3 of 4
4

2018) (cleaned up); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404-1527(c)(2) (“We will always give good 

reasons in our . . . decision for the weight we give your treating source’s medical 

opinion.”). 

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

correct legal standards in evaluating Pace’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. Pace v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 6:19-

cv-01186-DCN (D.S.C. Oct. 16, 2020). 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: 20-2337 Doc: 54 Filed: 08/12/2022 Pg: 4 of 4