Angela McLeod v. Carolyn Colvin

Filing

AMENDED OPINION filed amending and superseding opinion dated September 11, 2015. Originating case number: 5:13-cv-00550-BO. Copies to all parties. [15-1118]

Appeal: 15-1118

Doc: 29

Filed: 09/14/2015

Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1118

ANGELA D. MCLEOD,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of SSA,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:13-cv-00550-BO)

Submitted:

August 31, 2015
Amended:

Decided:

September 11, 2015

September 14, 2015

Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David F. Black, General Counsel, Cassia W. Parson, SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland; Benjamin C. Mizer,
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Thomas G. Walker,
United States Attorney, Caroline D. Lopez, Civil Division,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Appellant.
Charlotte W. Hall, CHARLES T. HALL LAW FIRM,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1118

Doc: 29

Filed: 09/14/2015

Pg: 2 of 6

PER CURIAM:
The

Acting

Commissioner

district

court’s

orders:

decision

denying

the

disability

(2)

(1)

Social

benefits

remanding

for

Security

reversing

application

insurance

benefits;

of

an

of

the

Angela

and

appeals

the

Commissioner’s
D.

McLeod

for

supplemental
of

award

security
and

benefits;

(3)

denying the Commissioner’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)
motion.

We hold that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in reversing the Commissioner’s decision instead of
remanding

the

consideration

matter

of

the

to

the

Commissioner

administrative

record.

for

further

Accordingly,

we

affirm the district court’s judgment.

I.
Following

a

hearing,

the

administrative

law

judge

(ALJ)

found that McLeod suffered from a number of severe impairments,
including malignant hypertension and migraine headaches.
ALJ

found

that

none

of

the

impairments,

singly

The

or

in

combination, met or equaled a listing at 20 C.F.R. pt. 404,
subpt.

P.,

app.

1

(2012).

The

ALJ

also

found

that

McLeod

retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform light
work, with some restrictions.

Consequently, on the basis of the

evidence

in

ALJ

disabled

and

the
not

record,
entitled

the
to

found

that

benefits.

The

2

McLeod
Appeals

was

not

Council

Appeal: 15-1118

Doc: 29

Filed: 09/14/2015

Pg: 3 of 6

upheld this decision, which became the final decision of the
Commissioner.
McLeod

then

filed

a

complaint

in

the

district

court.

Following a hearing on the parties’ cross-motions for judgment
on the pleadings, the district court reversed the Commissioner’s
decision on the ground that it was not supported by substantial
evidence.

The court focused on the ALJ’s handling of evidence

related to McLeod’s hypertension and migraine headaches.

The

court found that the record did not support the ALJ’s finding
that these conditions were managed when McLeod was compliant
with medication.

Specifically, the court found that McLeod’s

symptoms “continued despite medication compliance.”

(J.A. 22).

Additionally, the district court determined that the ALJ did not
give “sufficient weight” to the opinion of McLeod’s treating
physician.

(J.A. 22).

that

were

there

migraines

and

no

Because the vocational expert testified

jobs

hypertension

that

McLeod

were

not

could

perform

controlled,

if

the

her

court

remanded for an award of benefits.

II.
“When

examining

an

SSA

disability

determination,

a

reviewing court is required to uphold the determination when an
ALJ

has

applied

the

correct

legal

the

ALJ’s

factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.”

Bird

3

standards

and

Appeal: 15-1118

Doc: 29

Filed: 09/14/2015

Pg: 4 of 6

v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 699 F.3d 337, 340 (4th Cir.
2012).

Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a

reasonable

mind

might

accept

as

adequate

to

support

a

conclusion,” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)
(internal quotation marks omitted), and “consists of more than a
mere

scintilla

of

evidence

but

may

be

somewhat

less

than

a

preponderance,” Laws v. Celebrezze, 368 F.2d 640, 642 (4th Cir
1966).

“In

undertake

to

reviewing
re-weigh

determinations,

or

[Commissioner].”
1996).

Nor

for

substantial

conflicting

substitute

evidence,

our

evidence,
judgment

make
for

we

do

not

credibility
that

of

the

Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir.

should

the

reviewing

exercises in the first instance.”

court

“engage

in

these

Radford v. Colvin, 734 F.3d

288, 296 (4th Cir. 2013).
“If the reviewing court decides that the ALJ’s decision is
not supported by substantial evidence, it may affirm, modify, or
reverse the ALJ’s ruling ‘with or without remanding the cause
for

a

rehearing.’”

(2012)).

Id.

at

295

(citing

42

U.S.C.

§ 405(g)

It is appropriate to reverse without remanding for

further proceedings if “the record does not contain substantial
evidence

to

support

a

decision

denying

coverage

under

the

correct legal standard and . . . reopening the record for more
evidence would serve no purpose.”
F.2d

1002,

1012

(4th

Cir.

1974).
4

Breeden v. Weinberger, 493
“We

review

the

district

Appeal: 15-1118

Doc: 29

Filed: 09/14/2015

Pg: 5 of 6

court’s choice of remedy—to affirm, modify, or reverse—for abuse
of discretion.”
In

its

Radford, 734 F.3d at 295.

brief,

the

holding in Radford.

Commissioner

state

opinions

medical

this

Court’s

In that case, the ALJ’s denial of benefits

was “devoid of reasoning.”
cite

overstates

Id.

opinions,

merit[ed]”

the

While the ALJ in Radford did

he

did

weight

he

not

“indicate

afforded

why

them.

the
Id.

Furthermore, the ALJ failed to provide any explanation why he
rejected

the

treating

physician’s

opinions.

Id.

at

295-96.

While the district court ruled that remand was futile, we noted
that there was some conflicting evidence in the record.
296.

Consequently, the record was “ambivalen[t].”

Id.

Id. at
Because

of this, and because the ALJ failed to explain his reasoning,
the district court could not meaningfully review the record.
Id.

Thus, remanding for further proceedings was necessary.

Id.

Here, however, the ALJ provided reasoning in finding that
McLeod’s ailments could be managed by medication.

Thus, unlike

in Radford, the district court had the opportunity to consider
the ALJ’s analysis and determine if it was indeed supported by
substantial evidence.
record

did

not

The district court concluded that the

support

the

ALJ’s

conclusion

symptoms could be managed by medication.

that

McLeod’s

Indeed, the district

court found that the evidence pointed decidedly in the other
direction.
5

Appeal: 15-1118

Doc: 29

Filed: 09/14/2015

Pg: 6 of 6

We thus conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in reversing the decision of the Commissioner and
directing the Social Security Administration to award benefits.
Remanding for further development of evidence or consideration
of the record is unnecessary.

III.
We
dispense

therefore
with

affirm

oral

the

district

argument

because

court’s
the

judgment.

facts

and

We
legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

6