Laure Keffer v. Carolyn Colvin, No. 12-2252 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2252 LAURE ANN KEFFER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (7:11-cv-00478-SGW-RSB) Submitted: April 8, 2013 Decided: April 23, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark A. Black, BRUMBERG, MACKEY & WALL, P.L.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Eric P. Kressman, Regional Chief Counsel, Victor J. Pane, Supervisory Attorney, Timothy Reiley, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Laure Ann Keffer appeals the district court s order adopting the magistrate judge s recommendation 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. Cir. 2005) See Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th (per curiam) (citing 42 U.S.C. 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 evidence We do not reweigh evidence determinations supported by allows Id. in evaluating substantial reasonable defer to the Commissioner s decision. whether evidence; minds to a [w]here differ, we Id. On appeal, Keffer asserts that the administrative law judge s ( ALJ ) residual functional supported by substantial evidence. mischaracterized Keffer s capacity finding was not According to Keffer, the ALJ evidence relating to her daily activities, ignored the fact that her subjective complaints of pain were supported by the objective 2 medical record, and improperly rejected a clinical assessment of pain completed by Dr. Bayliss, who was Keffer s treating physician. the record contentions, convinces us otherwise. substantial evidence Our review of Contrary to supported Keffer s the ALJ s construction of the record, including his decision to partially discredit Keffer s subjective complaints of pain in light of the objective medical evidence. See Johnson, 434 F.3d at 658. Nor do we discern any reversible error in the ALJ s decision to give only limited weight to the terse and heavily-qualified opinion rendered by Dr. Bayliss. See Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d 171, 178 (4th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this 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.
