Margie Benton v. Michael Astrue, No. 10-2249 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2249 MARGIE CROSBY BENTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Administration, Commissioner of the Social Security Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (0:09-cv-00892-HFF) Submitted: August 25, 2011 Decided: September 8, 2011 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robertson H. Wendt, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF ROBERTSON WENDT, North Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Barbara M. Bowens, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina; Nadia N. Sullivan, Special Assistant United States Attorney, John Jay Lee, Regional Chief Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Margie Crosby Benton appeals the district court s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and affirming the Commissioner s decision to deny Benton a period of disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits. We must uphold the Commissioner s decision to deny benefits if the decision correct is legal supported standard by was substantial applied. See evidence 42 U.S.C. and the ยง 405(g) (2006); Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). After thoroughly reviewing the record, we affirm. We note that the parties strongly disputed whether the Appeals Council s denial of Benton s request for review constituted part of the Commissioner s final decision subject to judicial review. We do not find resolution of that issue necessary to our decision in this case. failed to demonstrate that the Either way, Benton has Commissioner s decision is subject to reversal. While [c]ourts often accord greater weight to the testimony of a treating physician, Johnson, 434 F.3d at 654 (internal quotation marks omitted), significantly less weight is due if a physician s opinion is not supported by clinical evidence evidence. The or if it is inconsistent with other substantial Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 590 (4th Cir. 1996). treating physician s opinion 2 as to Benton s residual functional capacity is not supported by any other notes of the treating physician. The record does not disclose the frequency, number, or nature of the treating physician s examinations. we have is conclusion. a start date, an end date, and the All physician s And, unlike in Wilkins v. Secretary, 953 F.2d 93, 96 (4th Cir. 1991), the treating physician s opinion conflicted with the opinions of two non-treating physicians. Benton s assertions, we do not find that Contrary to her treating physician s opinion demands controlling weight. Having found no merit in Benton s other grounds for appeal, dispense we affirm with the oral judgment argument of the because district the facts court. and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
