Johnson v. Apfel, Commissioner ( 2000 )


Menu:
  • UNPUBLISHED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    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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