Derek Moore v. Commissioner of Social

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:11-cv-00017-JPB-JES Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998919455].. [11-2381]

Appeal: 11-2381

Doc: 23

Filed: 08/20/2012

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-2381

DEREK JOSEPH MOORE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Party-in-Interest.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins.
John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (2:11-cv-00017-JPB-JES)

Submitted:

July 26, 2012

Decided:

August 20, 2012

Before DIAZ, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carter Zerbe, CARTER ZERBE & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellant.
Nora Koch, Acting Regional Chief
Counsel, Andrew C. Lynch, Acting Supervisory Counsel, SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; William J.
Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney, Chantal Jenkins, Special

Appeal: 11-2381

Doc: 23

Filed: 08/20/2012

Pg: 2 of 4

Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 11-2381

Doc: 23

Filed: 08/20/2012

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Derek

Moore

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his complaint for review of the Commissioner’s denial
of disability insurance benefits.

On appeal, Moore argues that

the Commissioner ignored relevant medical evidence, failed to
accord proper weight to medical opinion evidence, and failed to
analyze the combined effect of his impairments in determining
that he was not entitled to benefits.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2006), we will “uphold
the factual findings of the Commissioner if they are supported
by substantial evidence and were reached through application of
the correct legal standard.”

Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650,

653 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks, citations, and
alteration
evidence
support
citation

omitted).

as
a

a

“Substantial

reasonable

conclusion.”
omitted).

mind
Id.

We

do

evidence

might

accept

(internal
not

is

such

as

adequate

to

marks

and

or

make

quotation

reweigh

relevant

evidence

credibility determinations in evaluating whether a decision is
supported by substantial evidence; “[w]here conflicting evidence
allows

reasonable

minds

Commissioner’s decision.
In
claimant

must

order

to

provide

to

differ,”

we

defer

to

the

Id.
establish
evidence
3

entitlement
of

a

to

medically

benefits,

a

determinable

Appeal: 11-2381

Doc: 23

Filed: 08/20/2012

Pg: 4 of 4

impairment that precludes returning to past relevant work and
adjustment to other work.
(2012).

20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1508, 404.1520(g)

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 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.

The claimant bears the

burden of proof at steps one through four, but the burden shifts
to the Commissioner at step five.
U.S. 137, 146 n.5 (1987).

See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482

If a decision regarding disability

can be made at any step of the process, however, the inquiry
ceases.

20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude

that

the

evidence

Commissioner’s
and

was

legal standards.
order.
legal
before

decision

reached

through

is

supported

application

by
of

substantial
the

correct

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED
4