Delous Burch v. Michael Astrue

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:10-cv-00033-MR. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998914127].. [12-1191]

Appeal: 12-1191

Doc: 21

Filed: 08/13/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1191

DELOUS LYDA BURCH, (Mr.),
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL
J.
ASTRUE,
Administration,

Commissioner

of

Social

Security

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Bryson City.
Martin K.
Reidinger, District Judge. (2:10-cv-00033-MR)

Submitted:

August 2, 2012

Decided:

August 13, 2012

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vonno Lamar Gudger, III, GUDGER & GUDGER, P.A., Asheville, North
Carolina, for Appellant.
Anne M. Tompkins, United States
Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Karla J. Gwinn, Special
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
SOCIAL
SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-1191

Doc: 21

Filed: 08/13/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Delous Lyda Burch appeals the district court’s order
upholding the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision to deny
him a period of disability insurance benefits.

We have reviewed

the record and affirm.
Our

review

of

the

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

conflicting

determinations

supported
evidence

by

allows

We do not reweigh evidence
in

evaluating

substantial
reasonable

defer to the Commissioner’s decision.

Id.

whether

evidence;

minds

to

a

“[w]here

differ,”

we

Id.

Burch complains on appeal that the administrative law
judge’s (“ALJ’s”) residual functional capacity (“RFC”) finding
was not supported by substantial evidence.

According to Burch,

the ALJ failed to properly determine Burch’s limitations on a
function-by-function basis, erred in his credibility assessment
of Burch’s testimony, and improperly accorded greater weight to
the consultative physicians’ reports than to the opinions of
2

Appeal: 12-1191

Doc: 21

Filed: 08/13/2012

Burch’s treating physicians.
us otherwise.
the

ALJ’s

Pg: 3 of 3

Our review of the record convinces

Contrary to Burch’s assertions, we conclude that

review

of

Burch’s

abilities

comported

with

Social

Security Ruling 96-8p, the ALJ’s decision to discredit Burch’s
subjective

complaints

of

the

intensity

of

his

symptoms

was

supported by substantial evidence, and the ALJ’s decision to
rely

on

the

opinions

of

the

consultative

physicians

was

not

improper.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court.
legal
before

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

3