-
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT MINNIE R. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 99-2431 KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-98-1604-5-23) Submitted: March 31, 2000 Decided: April 21, 2000 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. _________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. _________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Steven Michael Calcutt, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, J. Rene Josey, United States Attorney, John Berkley Grimball, Assistant United States Attorney, Deana R. Ertl-Lombardi, Chief Counsel, Teresa H. Abbot, Assistant Regional Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRA- TION, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee. _________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). _________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Minnie R. Johnson appeals from the district court's order uphold- ing the denial of social security disability insurance benefits. We affirm. Johnson suffers primarily from an injured back and related sciatica. After a hearing on her application for benefits, an administrative law judge ("ALJ") found that Johnson was impaired as a result of her dis- orders but that she was nonetheless capable of performing a full range of sedentary work. Based on this finding, the ALJ concluded that she was not eligible for disability insurance benefits. The Appeals Coun- cil upheld this determination, which became the final decision of the Commissioner. Johnson sought review of this decision in the district court, which granted summary judgment to the Commissioner. John- son now appeals. We find the arguments raised on appeal to be without merit. First, Johnson does not satisfy all the criteria set forth at 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, § 1.05(c) (1999), and therefore was properly found not to be disabled at the third step of the sequential evaluation process. Sec- ond, substantial evidence supports the ALJ's finding that Johnson had no nonexertional impairments that would prevent performance of a full range of sedentary work. Accordingly, the testimony of a voca- tional expert was not needed, and the ALJ properly relied on the grids, which directed a finding of not disabled. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the Commission- er's decision and that the correct law was applied. Therefore, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
Document Info
Docket Number: 99-2431
Filed Date: 4/21/2000
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 10/30/2014