Court Opinion

ID: 9912229
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-21 21:00:43.726601+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:58:21.525506
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1476      Doc: 20         Filed: 12/20/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-1476

        EDNA GIGON,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

                             Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Asheville. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (1:20-cv-00133-FDW)

        Submitted: September 26, 2023                               Decided: December 20, 2023

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

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Charlotte W. Hall, ARROWOOD AND HALL, PLLC, Raleigh, North
        Carolina, for Appellant. Dena J. King, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
        STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina; David N. Mervis, Special Assistant
        United States Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY
        ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1476      Doc: 20         Filed: 12/20/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Edna Gigon appeals the district court’s order upholding the Administrative Law

        Judge’s (ALJ) denial of Gigon’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) (citation

        and internal quotation marks omitted). “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) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “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)

        (brackets, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted).

               We have reviewed the record and perceive no reversible error. The ALJ applied the

        correct legal standards in evaluating Gigon’s claim for benefits, and the ALJ’s factual

        findings are supported by substantial evidence.        The ALJ’s decision not to include

        additional limitations in Gigon’s residual functional capacity is supported by substantial

        evidence, and his basis for declining to do so is reasonably apparent from the decision. The

        ALJ’s assessment of Gigon’s subjective complaints is also supported by substantial

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1476         Doc: 20    Filed: 12/20/2023   Pg: 3 of 3

        evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment upholding the denial of

        benefits. Gigon v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:20-cv-00133-FDW (W.D.N.C. Mar. 29,

        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