Court Opinion

ID: 998248
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:08:15.872474+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:31:16.149427
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

BETTY G. JARRELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
                                                                       No. 98-1168
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Commissioner,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-96-789-2)

Submitted: July 28, 1998

Decided: March 23, 1999

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

H. Russell Vick, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank
W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Walter C. Holton, Jr., United
States Attorney, Mary Ann Sloan, Chief Counsel, Region IV, Haila
Naomi Kleinman, Acting Branch Chief, John C. Stoner, Assistant
Regional Counsel, Office of General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION, Atlanta Georgia, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

This case arises from a denial of Social Security benefits. In
December 1993, Betty G. Jarrell, a fifty-three year old female with
relevant work experience as an order filler and a quilt/comforter
stuffer, filed applications for disability benefits and supplemental
security income alleging disability due to bronchitis, chronic obstruc-
tive pulmonary disease, depression, nerves, borderline intellectual
functioning, and an ulcer. The applications were denied and an
Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") found Jarrell not disabled after a
hearing on March 1, 1995. The Appeals Council declined Jarrell's
request to review the ALJ's decision, thereby making the ALJ's deci-
sion the final decision of the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.981
(1998). Jarrell then filed a civil action seeking review of the denial of
the benefits. A magistrate judge recommended affirmation, and the
district judge adopted the recommendation and affirmed the Commis-
sioner's decision. This appeal followed.

This Court must determine whether the Commissioner's findings
are supported by substantial evidence, Richardson v. Perales, 402
U.S. 389, 401 (1971), and whether the correct legal standards were
applied. Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990). Sub-
stantial evidence is that evidence which a "reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Perales, 402 U.S. at 401
(internal quotations omitted). Jarrell attributes the following errors to
the Commissioner's decision: (1) the ALJ did not fully develop the
record and did not adequately assist Jarrell in the development of her
case; and (2) the ALJ erred in finding that her various impairments
did not meet or equal the criteria in Medical Listing 12.05C. Because
of these alleged errors, Jarrell asserts the Commissioner's decision
was not supported by substantial evidence.

We have reviewed the record, briefs, and pertinent case law in this
matter. Our review persuades us that the district court correctly found

                     2
that the Commissioner's decision denying benefits is based on sub-
stantial evidence. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the dis-
trict court opinion adopting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge. Jarrell v. Social Security Admin., No. CA-96-789-2 (M.D.N.C.
Dec. 30, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3