Court Opinion

ID: 9914261
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-29 21:00:44.023121+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:10:49.767711
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1759      Doc: 26            Filed: 12/28/2023   Pg: 1 of 6

                                               UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                 No. 22-1759

        PATRICIA DENISE CUMMINGS,

                     Plaintiff – Appellant,

              v.

        COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

                     Defendant – Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Beth P. Gesner, Magistrate Judge. (1:20-cv-03530-BPG)

        Submitted: November 9, 2023                                  Decided: December 28, 2023

        Before THACKER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Andrew N. Sindler, LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW N SINDLER, LLC,
        Severna Park, Maryland, for Appellant. Brian C. O’Donnell, Associate General Counsel,
        Stephen Giacchino, Supervisory Attorney, William Feldman, David N. Mervis, Special
        Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY
        ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland; Erek L. Barron, United States Attorney,
        OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1759        Doc: 26        Filed: 12/28/2023     Pg: 2 of 6

        PER CURIAM:

                  Patricia Cummings applied for social security benefits in 2014, claiming she was

        unable to work due to several physical and mental impairments. An administrative law

        judge (“ALJ”) held a hearing and denied her claim in 2017, but the district court vacated

        the decision and remanded for further consideration of Cummings’s hand impairments.

        Another ALJ held a new hearing on remand and also found that Cummings was not

        disabled. This time, the district court upheld the decision. For the reasons that follow, we

        affirm.

                                                     I.

                  The Social Security Administration (“the Agency”) uses a five-step process to

        evaluate whether someone is disabled under the Social Security Act.               20 C.F.R.

        § 404.1520(a)(4). The first three steps ask “(1) whether the claimant is working; (2) if not,

        whether she has a ‘severe impairment’; and (3) if she does, whether the impairment ‘meets

        or equals a listed impairment.’” Patterson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 846 F.3d 656,

        659 (4th Cir. 2017) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520). “If the claimant fails at step three, the

        ALJ must determine the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”), which is the most

        the claimant can still do despite physical and mental limitations that affect her ability to

        work.” Shinaberry v. Saul, 952 F.3d 113, 119 (4th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). Then, at step

        four, the ALJ applies the RFC to determine if “the claimant has proven that she is unable

        to perform past work.” Id. at 119. “If so, the ALJ proceeds to step five, where the burden

        shifts to the [Agency] to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the claimant can

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1759      Doc: 26         Filed: 12/28/2023     Pg: 3 of 6

        perform other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy, considering

        the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience.” Id. (cleaned up).

               On remand, the ALJ found at steps one and two that Cummings had not worked

        since 2014 and had several severe impairments, including bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome

        and mild arthritis of the elbows and knees, though not fibromyalgia. At step three, the ALJ

        determined that none of Cummings’s severe impairments met or medically equaled one of

        the impairments listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. The ALJ accordingly

        conducted an RFC assessment and concluded that Cummings could “perform light work

        as defined in 20 CFR 416.967(b),” with additional limitations on posture, manipulative

        movements, and environmental-hazard exposure. Based on this RFC, the ALJ found at

        step four that Cummings could not perform her past work as a car detailer. But, at step

        five, the ALJ determined that tens of thousands of jobs were nonetheless available to

        Cummings in the national economy, and denied her claim. The district court affirmed the

        Agency’s decision, and Cummings appealed.

                                                    II.

               We review the district court’s decision de novo and will affirm the Agency if “the

        ALJ has applied correct legal standards and the ALJ’s factual findings are supported by

        substantial evidence.” Shinaberry, 952 F.3d at 120 (cleaned up); see 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

        “Substantial evidence is that which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support

        a conclusion.” Pearson v. Colvin, 810 F.3d 204, 207 (4th Cir. 2015) (cleaned up). We will

        not “reweigh conflicting evidence, make credibility determinations, or substitute our

                                                    3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1759      Doc: 26         Filed: 12/28/2023      Pg: 4 of 6

        judgment for that of the ALJ.” Shinaberry, 952 F.3d at 123 (cleaned up). We will also

        defer to the ALJ “where conflicting evidence allows reasonable minds to differ as to

        whether a claimant is disabled.” Id. (cleaned up).

               Cummings raises several challenges on appeal to the Agency’s analysis, all of which

        fail. She first challenges the ALJ’s determination that her fibromyalgia did not constitute

        a severe impairment. But, as the Agency points out, Cummings forfeited this argument by

        failing to raise it before the district court. See Hicks v. Ferreyra, 965 F.3d 302, 310

        (4th Cir. 2020). Cummings has also not identified any “exceptional circumstances” that

        would justify departing from our rule against “consider[ing] issues raised for the first time

        on appeal.” See id. (cleaned up). We therefore find that Cummings has forfeited her

        arguments regarding fibromyalgia, and do not address them further.

               Nor did the Agency err in its RFC assessment when it found that Cummings’s

        statements about her symptoms’ intensity and persistence were inconsistent with other

        evidence in the record. A claimant’s statements regarding her symptoms “need not be

        accepted to the extent they are inconsistent with the available evidence, including objective

        evidence of the underlying impairment, and the extent to which that impairment can

        reasonably be expected to cause the pain the claimant alleges she suffered.” Craig v.

        Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 595 (4th Cir. 1996). Several medical examinations reported that

        Cummings, contrary to her reported symptoms, could walk normally without the assistance

        of a cane or walker. The ALJ also determined that Cummings’s impairments were “mild,”

        a finding based directly on the statements of medical experts in the record. The ALJ further

        noted the conservative management of Cummings’s symptoms — who reported taking

                                                     4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1759       Doc: 26         Filed: 12/28/2023     Pg: 5 of 6

        only ibuprofen for her pain and inconsistently using her prescribed wrist braces — as well

        as her daily activities, such as personal grooming and hygiene, supervising her children

        during homeschooling, and being the primary caregiver for her young grandchild. These

        are all relevant factors when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms and their potential limiting

        effects. 40 C.F.R. § 416.929(c)(3)(i)-(vii). *

               Finally, the Agency adequately explained why it gave little weight to a medical

        source statement of Dr. Perkis, a treating physician of Cummings. Dr. Perkis based that

        statement solely on Cummings’s reported symptoms rather than objective evidence; the

        statement conflicted with other medical evaluations before the Agency on Cummings’s

        condition; and the statement did not explain the connection between the symptoms reported

        and almost all of the work limitations identified. The ALJ did not need to give controlling

        weight to a medical statement unsupported by objective evidence and inconsistent with

        substantial evidence in the record. See Arakas v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 983 F.3d 83,

        106 (4th Cir. 2020) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c)(2)).

               In short, Cummings asks us to reweigh conflicting evidence in the record. This we

        will not do. Shinaberry, 952 F.3d at 123. We affirm the Agency’s thorough and reasoned

        decision as supported by substantial evidence. We dispense with oral argument because

               *
                  Cummings additionally argues that the ALJ disregarded evidence of frequent
        unplanned doctor visits that would lead to absenteeism incompatible with employment, but
        she cites no part of the record in support of this assertion.

                                                         5
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1759      Doc: 26         Filed: 12/28/2023     Pg: 6 of 6

        the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court

        and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                      AFFIRMED

                                                    6