Anitra Bostic v. Michael Astrue
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:10-cv-00630-GCM-DSC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998829328].. [11-2063]
Appeal: 11-2063
Document: 32
Date Filed: 04/10/2012
Page: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-2063
ANITRA N. BOSTIC,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Graham C. Mullen,
Senior District Judge. (3:10-cv-00630-GCM-DSC)
Submitted:
March 27, 2012
Decided:
April 10, 2012
Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charlotte Hall, CHARLES T. HALL LAW FIRM, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant.
Anne M. Tompkins, United States
Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Jason W. Valencia, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Boston, Massachusetts; Robert
J. Triba, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Boston, Massachusetts,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 11-2063
Document: 32
Date Filed: 04/10/2012
Page: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Anitra N. Bostic appeals the district court’s order
accepting
the
affirming
recommendation
the
Commissioner’s
of
the
denial
magistrate
of
her
judge
and
application
for
disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income,
pursuant
to
42
U.S.C.
decision
to
deny
§ 405(g)
benefits
if
(2006).
the
We
decision
must
is
uphold
the
supported
substantial evidence and the correct law was applied.
by
42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g); Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th Cir. 2005)
(per curiam).
as
a
Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence
reasonable
conclusion.”
omitted).
mind
might
accept
as
adequate
to
support
a
Johnson, 434 F.3d at 653 (internal quotation marks
This
court
does
not
reweigh
evidence
or
make
credibility determinations in evaluating whether a decision is
supported by substantial evidence; “[w]here conflicting evidence
allows
reasonable
minds
Commissioner’s decision.
First,
Bostic
to
differ,”
we
defer
to
the
Id.
asserts
that
the
administrative
law
judge (“ALJ”) erred in failing to give controlling weight to the
opinion of Dr. Girmay, her primary care physician.
The ALJ gave
little weight to the medical opinion of Dr. Girmay because his
opinion was inconsistent with other evidence in the record.
ALJ
concluded
Bostic’s
that
treating
the
opinion
physicians,
2
of
Dr.
was
Thomason,
entitled
another
to
The
of
special
Appeal: 11-2063
Document: 32
significance
Date Filed: 04/10/2012
because
it
was
Page: 3 of 4
supported
by
objective
medical
evidence and it was consistent with other substantial evidence
in the record.
The Commissioner generally gives controlling
weight to medical opinions of a treating physician, but only if
that
opinion
record.
is
consistent
with
20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d).
the
other
evidence
in
the
The opinions of Dr. Girmay
and Dr. Thomason do not reflect the same degree of limitation on
Bostic’s
functionality
and
are
therefore
not
consistent.
Further, Dr. Girmay’s conclusory determination of disability was
not supported by evidence in the record, nor was it explained by
references
to
any
medical evidence.
medical
condition
or
by
citation
to
any
See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e) (an opinion that
a claimant is disabled is not a “medical opinion”); 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1527(d)(3) (“The more a medical source presents relevant
evidence to support an opinion, particularly medical signs and
laboratory
opinion.”).
findings,
We
thus
the
more
conclude
weight
that
the
we
ALJ
will
did
give
not
that
err
in
choosing not to give Dr. Girmay’s opinion controlling weight. *
*
Bostic also asserts error in the ALJ’s failure to consider
the opinion of Dr. Brens.
Dr. Brens’ opinion is substantively
identical to that of Dr. Girmay.
Further, Dr. Brens was not
Bostic’s primary physician.
See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).
The ALJ permissibly chose not to give this opinion controlling
weight.
3
Appeal: 11-2063
Document: 32
Date Filed: 04/10/2012
Page: 4 of 4
Bostic next argues that the ALJ failed to accurately
assess her credibility.
evidence
and
Bostic’s
Bostic’s
subjective
The ALJ determined that the medical
daily
activities
complaints
of
did
not
pain.
substantiate
When
making
a
disability determination, the Commissioner considers objective
medical
evidence,
evidence
of
a
claimant’s
daily
activities,
efforts to work, a claimant’s description of pain, and any other
relevant
information.
entitled
to
disagree
20
with
C.F.R.
§ 404.1529.
Bostic’s
subjective
The
ALJ
was
view
of
her
physical limitations because the evidence in the record did not
conclusively establish that Bostic was unable to perform routine
functions, such as maintaining a household and serving as her
young daughter’s primary caregiver.
We therefore conclude that the district court did not
err
in
upholding
the
Commissioner’s
denial
of
benefits.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
dispense
with
oral
argument
because
the
facts
and
We
legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?