Court Opinion

ID: 1001336
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:54:21.438019+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:12:35.524439
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

MINNIE R. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
                                                                     No. 99-2431
KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg.
Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge.
(CA-98-1604-5-23)

Submitted: March 31, 2000

Decided: April 21, 2000

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges,
and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Steven Michael Calcutt, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, J. Rene Josey, United
States Attorney, John Berkley Grimball, Assistant United States
Attorney, Deana R. Ertl-Lombardi, Chief Counsel, Teresa H. Abbot,
Assistant Regional Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRA-
TION, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Minnie R. Johnson appeals from the district court's order uphold-
ing the denial of social security disability insurance benefits. We
affirm.

Johnson suffers primarily from an injured back and related sciatica.
After a hearing on her application for benefits, an administrative law
judge ("ALJ") found that Johnson was impaired as a result of her dis-
orders but that she was nonetheless capable of performing a full range
of sedentary work. Based on this finding, the ALJ concluded that she
was not eligible for disability insurance benefits. The Appeals Coun-
cil upheld this determination, which became the final decision of the
Commissioner. Johnson sought review of this decision in the district
court, which granted summary judgment to the Commissioner. John-
son now appeals.

We find the arguments raised on appeal to be without merit. First,
Johnson does not satisfy all the criteria set forth at 20 C.F.R. Part 404,
Subpart P, § 1.05(c) (1999), and therefore was properly found not to
be disabled at the third step of the sequential evaluation process. Sec-
ond, substantial evidence supports the ALJ's finding that Johnson had
no nonexertional impairments that would prevent performance of a
full range of sedentary work. Accordingly, the testimony of a voca-
tional expert was not needed, and the ALJ properly relied on the
grids, which directed a finding of not disabled.

We conclude that substantial evidence supports the Commission-
er's decision and that the correct law was applied. Therefore, we
affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                     2