Court Opinion

ID: 1001059
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:50:10.815874+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:25:58.399539
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

SHERRY DOYLE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
                                                                     No. 99-2328
KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill.
Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.
(CA-98-2938-10-19BD)

Submitted: February 29, 2000

Decided: March 17, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER,
Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

W. Daniel Mayes, Aiken, South Carolina, for Appellant. John B.
Grimball, Assistant Attorney General, J. Rene Josey, United States
Attorney, John Berkley Grimball, Assistant United States Attorney,
Deana R. Ertl-Lombardi, Chief Counsel, Allan D. Berger, Assistant
Regional Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECUR-
ITY ADMINISTRATION, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Sherry Doyle pursued a claim for Supplemental Security Income
(SSI) payments under the Social Security Act, alleging disability due
to a previous back injury, rheumatoid arthritis, and chronic deep
venous thrombosis. An administrative law judge (ALJ) determined
that, although Doyle could no longer perform her past relevant work,
sufficient jobs existed in the national economy that she had the resid-
ual functional capacity to perform. Doyle appealed the ALJ's decision
to the Appeals Council. She submitted additional documents from one
of her treating physicians and records from a local hospital reflecting
treatment that she received after the ALJ's decision. The Appeals
Council found that this evidence did not provide a basis upon which
to change the ALJ's decision and denied review.

Doyle then filed the present action. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) (1994), the matter was referred to a magistrate judge, who
recommended that the Commissioner's decision be affirmed. Over
Doyle's objection, the district court adopted the report and recom-
mendation, affirming the denial of Doyle's claim. Doyle timely
appealed.

This court reviews the denial of a claim for SSI to determine
whether the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards and
whether substantial evidence supports his findings. See Craig v.
Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996). When the record includes
new evidence that was presented to the Appeals Council, this court
reviews the entire record to determine whether the Commissioner's
decision meets this level of review. Having carefully considered the
record under this standard, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
court. See Doyle v. Apfel, No. CA-98-2938-10-19BD (D.S.C. Aug. 6,
1999).* We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
_________________________________________________________________
*Although the district court's judgment or order is marked as "filed"
on August 5, 1999, the district court's records show that it was entered

                    2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
_________________________________________________________________
on the docket sheet on August 6, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the judgment
or order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date
of the district court's decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232,
1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

                    3