Lawton v. Social Security Admin, No. 05-2257 (4th Cir. 2006)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2257 REATHA B. LAWTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-03-664-REP) Submitted: June 30, 2006 Decided: July 24, 2006 Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reatha B. Lawton, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Hannah Lauck, Tara Louise Casey, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Reatha B. Lawton appeals the district court s order accepting the magistrate judge s recommendation and granting summary judgment for the Commissioner on Lawton s claim that the Administrative Law Judge improperly determined the onset date of her disability as January 20, 2001, and not September 28, 1999. We must by uphold the decision if the decision is supported substantial evidence and the correct law was applied. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2000); Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996); see also Villa v. Heckler, 797 F.2d 794, 796 (9th Cir. 1986) (noting that the question is whether the chosen onset date is supported by substantial evidence, not whether an earlier date could have been supported). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Lawton v. Social Security Admin., No. CA-03-664-REP (E.D. Va. Sept. 20, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED - 2 -

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.