Court Opinion

ID: 9947012
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-01 21:01:10.182981+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:44.985541
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1868      Doc: 20         Filed: 02/29/2024     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-1868

        RICHARD PACKARD,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY; SSA NOTICING; US ATTORNEY
        SOCIAL SECURITY NOTICING,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Asheville. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (1:22-cv-00247-FDW)

        Submitted: February 27, 2024                                  Decided: February 29, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: George C. Piemonte, MARTIN, JONES & PIEMONTE, Charlotte, North
        Carolina, for Appellant. Brian C. O’Donnell, Associate General Counsel, Dena J. King,
        United States Attorney, Natasha T. McKay, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
        David E. Somers, III, Office of Program Litigation, Office of the General Counsel,
        SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1868      Doc: 20         Filed: 02/29/2024      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Richard Packard appeals the district court’s order upholding the administrative law

        judge’s (ALJ) denial of Packard’s 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 Packard’s claims—particularly in

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

        evidence, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c—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 entitled to

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

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1868         Doc: 20    Filed: 02/29/2024   Pg: 3 of 3

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

        decision. Packard v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:22-cv-00247-FDW (W.D.N.C. June 14,

        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