Court Opinion

ID: 992783
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:57:40.291862+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:37:50.305363
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

MARY R. LOWREY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
                                                                     No. 96-2832
SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia.
Joseph R. McCrorey, Magistrate Judge.
(CA-95-2689-3-1BC)

Submitted: July 1, 1997

Decided: August 15, 1997

Before HALL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

A. Paul Weissenstein, Jr., WEINBERG, BROWN & MCMILLAN,
Sumter, South Carolina, for Appellant. Frank W. Hunger, Assistant
Attorney General, J. Rene Josey, United States Attorney, Mary Ann
Sloan, Chief Counsel, Region IV, Mack A. Davis, Acting Deputy
Chief Counsel, Holly A. Grimes, Assistant Regional Counsel, Renata
D. Turner, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of General Counsel,
Region IV, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Atlanta,
Georgia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Mary R. Lowrey appeals the order of a magistrate judge
affirming the Commissioner's decision denying her application for
widow's insurance benefits. On appeal, she challenges whether sub-
stantial evidence supported the administrative law judge's ("ALJ")
decision that her birth record was preferred evidence of her age and
that it outweighed all other evidence. Finding no reversible error, we
affirm.

Judicial review is limited to determining whether substantial evi-
dence supported the ALJ's decision and whether he applied the cor-
rect law. Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990). It is
the ALJ's responsibility to resolve conflicts in the evidence; not the
reviewing court's. Smith v. Chater, 99 F.3d 635, 638 (4th Cir. 1996).

In the present case, we find that the magistrate judge properly
determined that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's decision
and that he applied the correct law. Lowrey's birth record constituted
"preferred evidence" pursuant to 20 C.F.R.§ 404.716 (1996), which
was conclusive absent substantial evidence casting doubt as to its
accuracy. The ALJ analyzed this aspect of the issue in great detail and
properly found that the evidence presented by Lowrey was insuffi-
cient to refute the accuracy of the birth record. Since substantial evi-
dence supports the ALJ's determination that Lowrey was not yet sixty
years old, the magistrate judge did not err in affirming the decision.

We therefore affirm the order of the magistrate judge. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
quately presented in the material before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    2