Court Opinion

ID: 9397901
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-26 21:01:45.402819+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:28.592268
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1828      Doc: 19         Filed: 05/25/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1828

        TINA BOOKER,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:21-cv-00348-REP)

        Submitted: May 23, 2023                                           Decided: May 25, 2023

        Before AGEE, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Clifford M. Farrell, MANRING & FARRELL, Columbus, Ohio, for
        Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Jonathan T. Lucier, Assistant United
        States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia,
        for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1828      Doc: 19         Filed: 05/25/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Tina Booker appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s

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

        application for supplemental security income. “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. Specifically, the ALJ

        applied the correct legal standards in evaluating Booker’s claims—particularly in terms of

        analyzing the supportability and consistency of the proffered medical opinion evidence,

        see 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c (2023)—and 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 the new regulatory scheme applicable to medical opinion

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1828         Doc: 19     Filed: 05/25/2023    Pg: 3 of 3

        evidence, an 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. Booker v. Kijakazi,

        No. 3:21-cv-00348-REP (E.D. Va. June 7, 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