Court Opinion

ID: 9412241
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-28 21:02:03.113977+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:34.270146
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2140      Doc: 40         Filed: 07/27/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-2140

        LAURA CATHERINE BOGGS,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

                             Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:21-cv-00094-GMG-MJA)

        Submitted: July 25, 2023                                          Decided: July 27, 2023

        Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Dana W. Duncan, DUNCAN DISABILITY LAW, S.C., Nekoosa,
        Wisconsin, for Appellant. Brian C. O’Donnell, Associate General Counsel, David N.
        Mervis, Senior Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY
        ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland; William Ihlenfeld, United States Attorney,
        Morgan S. McKee, Assistant United States Attorney, Maija DiDomenico, Special Assistant
        United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling,
        West Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2140      Doc: 40         Filed: 07/27/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Laura Catherine Boggs appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate

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

        Boggs’ 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 Boggs’ claims—particularly in terms

        of analyzing the supportability and consistency of the significant manipulative restriction

        advanced in the functional capacity evaluation, 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

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2140         Doc: 40      Filed: 07/27/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        applicant’s “treating physicians are not entitled to special deference,” and reviewing ALJ’s

        analysis under this regulation for substantial evidence). Accordingly, we affirm the district

        court’s judgment upholding the ALJ’s decision. Boggs v. Kijakazi, No. 3:21-cv-00094-

        GMG-MJA (N.D.W. Va. Sept. 6, 2022).

               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