Lawrence Golini v. Michael Astrue

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:10-cv-00525-RBS-TEM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998874646].. [11-2289]

Appeal: 11-2289

Doc: 31

Filed: 06/14/2012

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-2289

LAWRENCE GOLINI,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (2:10-cv-00525-RBS-TEM)

Submitted:

June 4, 2012

Decided:

June 14, 2012

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert W. Gillikin, II, RUTTER MILLS, LLP, Norfolk, Virginia,
for Appellant.
Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney,
Lawrence Leonard, Managing Assistant United States Attorney,
Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-2289

Doc: 31

Filed: 06/14/2012

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Lawrence
accepting

the

Golini

magistrate

appeals

the

judge’s

district

court’s

recommendation

and

order

upholding

the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision to deny Golini a
period of disability insurance benefits.
Our

review

of

the

We affirm.

Commissioner’s

disability

determination is limited to evaluating whether the findings are
supported by substantial evidence and whether the correct law
was applied.
Cir. 2005)

See Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th

(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.”
(internal quotation marks omitted).
or

make

decision

credibility
is

We do not reweigh evidence

determinations

supported

by

Id.

in

evaluating

substantial

whether

evidence;

a

“[w]here

conflicting evidence allows reasonable minds to differ,” this
court defers to the Commissioner’s decision.

Id.

On appeal, Golini contends that the administrative law
judge

(“ALJ”)

erroneously

classified

his

limitations

as

constituting an ability to perform light, rather than sedentary,
work.

The case turns on the role of the sit-stand limitation,

as Golini argues that the total time he would stand and walk,
given

his

sit-stand

limitation,

requirements of light work.

does

not

meet

the

minimum

Golini asserts that the ALJ should
2

Appeal: 11-2289

Doc: 31

Filed: 06/14/2012

Pg: 3 of 4

have classified his work abilities as consistent with sedentary
work, entitling him to disability benefits pursuant to MedicalVocational

Guidelines

Subpt.

App.

P,

2,

Rule

Rule

201.14.

201.14

See

20

(directing

C.F.R.
that

Pt.

high

404,

school

graduate or more who is closely approaching advanced age without
transferable skills be deemed disabled).
Social
individual

with

definition

of

classifications.

Security
a

Ruling

sit-stand

either

(“SSR”)

83-12

requirement

may

sedentary

notes

or

the

not

that
meet

light

SSR 83-12, 1983 WL 31253, at *4.

an
the

work

This is

because “[s]uch an individual is not functionally capable of
doing

either

the

prolonged

sitting

contemplated

in

the

definition of sedentary work (and for the relatively few light
jobs which are performed primarily in a seated position) or the
prolonged standing or walking contemplated for most light work.”
Id.

The

Commissioner

“may

rely

on

the

Guidelines] only in ‘appropriate cases.’”
762

F.2d

Campbell,

1516,
461

1520
U.S.

(11th
458,

Cir.

466

1985)

(1983)).

[Medical-Vocational
Gibson v. Heckler,

(quoting
Such

Heckler

v.

reliance

is

inappropriate when, as here, a claimant’s residual functional
capacity falls between the exertional categories upon which the
Medical-Vocational Guidelines rely.

See Jesurum v. Sec’y of

U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 48 F.3d 114, 120 (3d Cir.
1995) (collecting cases); see also 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P,
3

Appeal: 11-2289

App.

Doc: 31

2,

Rule

Filed: 06/14/2012

200.00(a),

(d)

Pg: 4 of 4

(stating

rules

are

to

be

used

“[w]here the findings of fact made with respect to a particular
individual’s vocational factors and residual functional capacity
coincide with all of the criteria of a particular rule”).
Because

Golini’s

sit-stand

requirement

placed

him

outside the category of individuals contemplated by the MedicalVocational Guidelines, we conclude that the ALJ’s decision to
rely

on

the

vocational

expert’s

testimony

was

appropriate.

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