Court Opinion

ID: 9386875
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-13 21:00:27.333102+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:09.155736
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1493      Doc: 26         Filed: 04/12/2023      Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-1493

        ANGELA MAY,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

                             Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
        Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (9:20-cv-02197-MGL)

        Submitted: March 3, 2023                                           Decided: April 12, 2023

        Before RICHARDSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior
        Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Paul T. McChesney, MCCHESNEY & MCCHESNEY, P.C., Spartanburg,
        South Carolina, for Appellant. Brian C. O’Donnell, Associate General Counsel, Katie M.
        Gaughan, Supervisory Attorney, Mark J. Dorval, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
        Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore,
        Maryland; Adair Ford Boroughs, United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina,
        Andrew R. de Holl, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1493      Doc: 26         Filed: 04/12/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Angela May appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s

        recommendation and upholding the administrative law judge’s (ALJ) denial of May’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 May’s claims, particularly in terms

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

        see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c (2022), 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

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1493         Doc: 26    Filed: 04/12/2023   Pg: 3 of 3

        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.   May v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 9:20-cv-02197-MGL (D.S.C.

        Feb. 28, 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