Shirley Slone v. Comm of Social Security, No. 12-1542 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1542 SHIRLEY M. SLONE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, District Judge. (2:10-cv-00018-JPJ-PMS) Submitted: September 11, 2012 Decided: September 13, 2012 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph E. Wolfe, Norton, Virginia, for Appellant. Nora Koch, Acting Regional Chief Counsel, Brian O Donnell, Supervisory Attorney, Charles J. Kawas, Special Assistant United States Attorney, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Timothy J. Heaphy, United States Attorney, Rick Mountcastle, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Shirley M. Slone appeals the district court s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and upholding the Commissioner of Social Security s decision to deny her 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. See Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (citing 42 U.S.C.A. ยง 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 credibility decision is conflicting determinations supported evidence by allows According ( ALJ ) to improperly in reasonable Slone, failed We do not reweigh evidence evaluating substantial defer to the Commissioner s decision. to the find Id. whether evidence; minds to a [w]here differ, we Id. administrative that Slone law judge suffered from severe mental impairments, and improperly failed to base his residual functional capacity ( RFC ) assessment on the combined effects of Slone s record convinces physical us impairments. otherwise. 2 None Our of review Slone s of the treating physicians opined that she suffered from a severe mental impairment, and the record amply supports the ALJ s conclusion that her mental infirmities did not significantly affect her ability to perform work-related tasks. The record likewise supports the ALJ s RFC assessment. 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
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.
