Court Opinion

ID: 997412
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 16:56:26.052466+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:25:49.128934
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM J. PERRY, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
                                                                      No. 98-1722
KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington.
Robert J. Staker, Senior District Judge.
(CA-97-249-3)

Submitted: November 24, 1998

Decided: December 31, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Leonard Stayton, Inez, Kentucky, for Appellant. James A. Winn,
Chief Counsel, Region III, Joyce M.J. Gordon, Assistant Regional
Counsel, Office of General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMIN-
ISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Rebecca A. Betts, United
States Attorney, Ray M. Shephard, Assistant United States Attorney,
Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

William J. Perry appeals from the district court's order granting the
Commissioner of Social Security's (Commissioner) motion for sum-
mary judgment and affirming the denial of social security disability
insurance benefits. On appeal, Perry asserts that the administrative
law judge (ALJ) did not follow the sequential analysis in 20 C.F.R.
§ 416.920 (1998),* and erred in finding that he was not disabled
because the ALJ's conclusion that Perry did not satisfy the require-
ments in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 12.05(C) (1998), was
not supported by substantial evidence. Finding no error, we affirm.

After a thorough review of the joint appendix and administrative
record, we find that the ALJ followed the proper sequential analysis.
As for the assertion that the ALJ erred in finding that Perry was not
disabled, we review the denial of social security benefits to determine
whether the ALJ has applied the correct legal standards and whether
the findings are supported by substantial evidence. See Hays v.
Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990). Substantial evidence
is defined as "`such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'" Richardson v. Perales,
402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB,
305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). Although substantial evidence is greater
than a mere scintilla, it may be less than a preponderance. See Hays,
907 F.2d at 1456. We have reviewed Perry's assertions and allega-
tions of error under this standard and conclude that the district court's
entry of judgment in favor of the Commissioner was proper.

Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because
_________________________________________________________________
*Section 416.920 applies to applications for supplemental security
income. The sequential analysis applicable to Perry's request for disabil-
ity income benefits is governed by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (1998).

                    2
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materi-
als before the court and argument would not aid the decisional pro-
cess.

AFFIRMED

                    3