Court Opinion

ID: 9912638
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-22 21:00:53.235895+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:00:52.450928
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1548      Doc: 22         Filed: 12/21/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1548

        CAMERON RAYMON SIMMONS,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Newport News. Elizabeth W. Hanes, District Judge. (4:21-cv-00116-EWH-DEM)

        Submitted: December 19, 2023                                Decided: December 21, 2023

        Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Daniel S. Jones, LAW OFFICES OF HARRY J. BINDER & CHARLES E.
        BINDER, P.C., New York, New York, for Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States
        Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, Lauren A. Wetzler, Chief, Civil Division, Alexandria,
        Virginia, Joel E. Wilson, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
        STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia; Brian C. O’Donnell, Associate General
        Counsel, David E. Somers, III, Office of Program Litigation, Office 3, Office of the
        General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1548      Doc: 22         Filed: 12/21/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Cameron Raymon Simmons appeals the district court’s order adopting the

        magistrate judge’s recommendation and upholding the administrative law judge’s (ALJ)

        denial of Simmons’ 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).

               We have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error. We conclude that the

        ALJ applied the correct legal standards in evaluating Simmons’ claims—particularly in

        terms of analyzing the supportability and consistency of the proffered medical opinion

        evidence, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c (2023)—and that the ALJ’s factual findings are

        supported by substantial evidence, accord Bowers v. Kijakazi, 40 F.4th 872, 875 (8th Cir.

        2022) (recognizing that, under § 404.1520c, an applicant’s “treating physicians are not

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1548         Doc: 22        Filed: 12/21/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        entitled to special deference,” and reviewing ALJ’s analysis under this regulation for

        substantial evidence). Finally, we agree with the district court that there was no basis for

        remanding this matter to the ALJ because the opinion evidence Simmons proffered to the

        Appeals Council was not “new” in that it was previously available, cumulative, and did not

        show a reasonable probability of a different outcome. See Meyer v. Astrue, 662 F.3d 700,

        705 (4th Cir. 2011) (providing that evidence first presented to the Appeals Council “is new

        if it is not duplicative or cumulative and is material if there is a reasonable possibility that

        the new evidence would have changed the outcome” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

        Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment upholding the ALJ’s decision.

        Simmons v. Kijakazi, No. 4:21-cv-00116-EWH-DEM (E.D. Va. Mar. 31, 2023).

               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

                                                       3