Everett Flesher v. Nancy Berryhill , 697 F. App'x 212 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 16-1645
    EVERETT CURTIS FLESHER,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia,
    at Charleston. Thomas E. Johnston, Chief District Judge. (2:14-cv-30661)
    Submitted: August 30, 2017                                  Decided: September 19, 2017
    Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Michelle Kuhar Dyer, Jan Denise Dils, JAN DILS, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, PLC,
    Parkersburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Nora Koch, Stephen Giacchino, Patrick
    Roach, Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Philadelphia,
    Pennsylvania; Carol A. Casto, United States Attorney, Stephen M. Horn, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Everett Curtis Flesher appeals the district court’s order accepting the
    recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his complaint for review
    of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) denial of disability
    insurance benefits. “When examining an SSA disability determination, a reviewing court
    is required to uphold the determination when an [administrative law judge (ALJ)] has
    applied correct legal standards and the ALJ’s factual findings are supported by substantial
    evidence.” Bird v. Commissioner, 
    699 F.3d 337
    , 340 (4th Cir. 2012). “Substantial
    evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
    support a conclusion.”     Johnson v. Barnhart, 
    434 F.3d 650
    , 653 (4th Cir. 2005)
    (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). “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) (internal quotation marks omitted). We do not reweigh evidence
    or make credibility determinations in evaluating whether a decision is supported by
    substantial evidence; “[w]here conflicting evidence allows reasonable minds to differ,”
    we defer to the ALJ’s decision. 
    Johnson, 434 F.3d at 653
    .
    In order to establish entitlement to benefits, a claimant must provide evidence of a
    medically determinable impairment that precludes returning to past relevant work and
    adjustment to other work.       20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1508, 404.1520(g) (2012).             The
    Commissioner uses a five-step process to evaluate a disability claim.           20 C.F.R.
    § 404.1520 (2011).    Pursuant to this process, the Commissioner asks, in sequence,
    whether the claimant: (1) worked during the alleged period of disability; (2) had a severe
    2
    impairment; (3) had an impairment that met or equaled the severity of a listed
    impairment; (4) could return to his past relevant work; and (5) if not, could perform any
    other work in the national economy. Id.; see also Lewis v. Berryhill, 
    858 F.3d 858
    , 861
    (4th Cir. 2017). The claimant bears the burden of proof at steps one through four, but the
    burden shifts to the Commissioner at step five. See 
    Lewis, 858 F.3d at 861
    . If the ALJ
    determines that a claimant failed to demonstrate that his disability meets or medically
    equals a listed impairment at step three, the ALJ must assess the claimant’s residual
    functioning capacity before proceeding to step four. 
    Id. at 861-62.
    We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the Commissioner’s
    decision is supported by substantial evidence and was reached through application of the
    correct legal standards. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-1645

Citation Numbers: 697 F. App'x 212

Filed Date: 9/19/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023