Court Opinion

ID: 9370287
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-11 21:00:18.082914+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:20.793459
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1835      Doc: 28            Filed: 02/10/2023   Pg: 1 of 4

                                               UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                 No. 21-1835

        DEVIN JAMES MARAVEL,

                     Plaintiff – Appellant,

              v.

        KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

                     Defendant – Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:20-cv-00624-CCE-LPA)

        Argued: January 26, 2023                                      Decided: February 10, 2023

        Before KING and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ARGUED: David Randolph Paletta, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. David E.
        Somers, III, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for
        Appellee. ON BRIEF: Brian O’Donnell, Regional Chief Counsel, Charles Kawas,
        Supervisory Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY
        ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Sandra J. Hairston, Acting United
        States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North
        Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1835      Doc: 28         Filed: 02/10/2023     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Devin James Maravel applied at age 18 for supplemental security income and

        disabled adult child’s benefits. An ALJ held a hearing and then determined that Maravel

        was not disabled and therefore not entitled to benefits. After exhausting his administrative

        appeals, Maravel filed a complaint in federal court. The district court granted a motion for

        judgment on the pleadings affirming the denial of benefits. Maravel then filed this appeal.

        For the reasons set forth within, we now affirm.

               We review a district court’s grant of a motion for judgment on the pleadings de

        novo. See Woods v. Berryhill, 888 F.3d 686, 691 (4th Cir. 2018). We will affirm an ALJ’s

        disability determination “when an ALJ has applied correct legal standards and the ALJ’s

        factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.” Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632,

        634 (4th Cir. 2015).

               To determine whether an individual is disabled, and therefore entitled to Social

        Security Disability (SSD) benefits, an ALJ uses a multi-step sequential evaluation process.

        See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). After “the ALJ asks at step one whether the claimant has

        been working; [and] at step two, whether the claimant’s medical impairments meet the

        regulations’ severity and duration requirements; at step three, [the ALJ determines]

        whether the medical impairments meet or equal an impairment listed in the

        regulations . . . .” Woods v. Berryhill, 888 F.3d 686, 689 (4th Cir. 2018) (quoting Mascio

        v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632, 634 (4th Cir. 2015)). When evaluating mental disorders at step

        three the ALJ rates the claimant’s limitations in four areas of mental functioning:

        (1) understanding, remembering, or applying information; (2) interacting with others;

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1835      Doc: 28         Filed: 02/10/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

        (3) concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace; and (4) adapting and managing oneself.

        20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1 § 12.00A.2.b. The ALJ uses a five-point rating scale

        consisting of none, mild, moderate, marked, and extreme limitation. Id. § 12.00F.2. To

        meet or equal a mental disorder listed in the regulations, a claimant must have an extreme

        limitation in one or marked limitation in two of these areas. Id. § 12.00A.2.b. If the

        claimant satisfies this standard he is presumptively disabled and entitled to benefits. 20

        C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4).

               If a claimant’s medical impairments do not meet or equal an impairment listed in

        the regulations, and therefore entitle him to presumptive disability, the ALJ must determine

        a claimant’s residual functional capacity (RFC). Id. The RFC is a measure of the most a

        claimant can still do despite his impairments. Id. After determining a claimant’s RFC, the

        ALJ will consider whether the claimant can perform his past relevant work and, if not,

        whether jobs that the claimant can perform “exist in significant numbers in the national

        economy.” Id. § 404.1560(c).

               Maravel argues that the ALJ erred in ruling that his mental impairments do not meet

        the listing criteria for presumptive disability at step three, by finding that his functional

        limitations are mild or moderate, and not marked or severe. He also asserts that the ALJ

        erred in calculating his RFC as it pertains to his mental health. Maravel contends that both

        the step three and RFC determinations conflict with record evidence of his mental

        impairments. He specifically argues that these rulings conflict with records he submitted

        from a school he attended in his teenage years and from medical providers he has seen

        since he submitted his application at age 18.

                                                        3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1835      Doc: 28         Filed: 02/10/2023      Pg: 4 of 4

               Although the records that Maravel focuses on indicate a high degree of impairment

        in some areas relevant to his ability to work, other evidence in the record shows less severe

        limitations and supports the ALJ’s findings that, overall, Maravel’s impairments do not

        warrant presumptive disability or a more limited RFC calculation. In reviewing the

        decisions of the ALJ, we do not “reweigh conflicting evidence, make credibility

        determinations, or substitute our judgment for that of the [ALJ].” Johnson v. Barnhart,

        434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th Cir. 2005). When faced with conflicting evidence in the record,

        the responsibility to decide which evidence to credit lies with the ALJ. Id.

               If substantial evidence in the record supports an ALJ’s determination, we do not

        second guess the ALJ’s decisions resolving conflicts in the record evidence. Here there is

        substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s determination that Maravel’s

        impairments do not meet the step three listing criteria and to support the ALJ’s calculation

        of his RFC. Thus, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

                                                                                        AFFIRMED

                                                     4