Harris v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Fourth Circuit

Harris v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

538 F. App'x 293

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided August 23, 2013·No. 12-2409·Unpublished·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Louis Keith Harris appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and upholding the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision to deny him supplemental security insurance benefits and a period of disability insurance benefits. We have reviewed the record and affirm.

Our review of the Commissioner’s disability determination is limited to evaluating whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the correct law was applied. See Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2006)). “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). We do not reweigh evidence or make credibility determinations in evaluating whether a decision is supported by substantial evidence; “[wjhere conflicting evidence allows reasonable minds to differ,” we defer to the Commissioner’s decision. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Harris claims (1) that the magistrate judge erred in restricting his review after the second remand of Harris’s petition solely to the issue of credibility; (2) that the district court should have remanded the case for the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) to consider the opinion of Dr. Holford, which was acquired only after the conclusion of administrative proceedings; and (3) that the ALJ’s credibility findings with respect to the degree of pain suffered by Harris are both unclear and unsupported by substantial evidence. Having reviewed each of Harris’ arguments in light of the record, we conclude that none of them suffices to disturb the ALJ’s denial of benefits.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Louis Keith Harris appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and upholding the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision to deny him supplemental security insurance benefits and a period of disability insurance benefits. We have reviewed the record and affirm.

Our review of the Commissioner’s disability determination is limited to evaluating whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the correct law was applied. See Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2006)). “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). We do not reweigh evidence or make credibility determinations in evaluating whether a decision is supported by substantial evidence; “[wjhere conflicting evidence allows reasonable minds to differ,” we defer to the Commissioner’s decision. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Harris claims (1) that the magistrate judge erred in restricting his review after the second remand of Harris’s petition solely to the issue of credibility; (2) that the district court should have remanded the case for the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) to consider the opinion of Dr. Holford, which was acquired only after the conclusion of administrative proceedings; and (3) that the ALJ’s credibility findings with respect to the degree of pain suffered by Harris are both unclear and unsupported by substantial evidence. Having reviewed each of Harris’ arguments in light of the record, we conclude that none of them suffices to disturb the ALJ’s denial of benefits.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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.

Harris v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 538 F. App'x 293 (4th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

538 F. App'x 293 (Harris v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related