Judith Halpern v. SSA, No. 16-1473 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1473 JUDITH HALPERN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SSA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:14-cv-02538-TDC) Submitted: February 9, 2017 Decided: February 17, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Judith Halpern, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Blair Prevas, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Judith Halpern appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and upholding the Commissioner’s denial of Halpern’s applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. At the outset, we limit our review to the issues raised in Halpern’s informal brief. Cir. Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th 2014). Further, our review of the Commissioner’s determination is limited to evaluating whether the correct law was applied and whether substantial evidence. the findings are supported by Bird v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 699 F.3d 337, 340 (4th Cir. 2012). “Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” (4th Cir. 2012) conducting this Hancock v. Astrue, 667 F.3d 470, 472 (internal analysis, evidence, make for that we credibility judgment of quotation may marks not “reweigh determinations, the omitted). or conflicting substitute [administrative In law our judge].” Radford v. Colvin, 734 F.3d 288, 296 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). Within this framework, we have thoroughly reviewed the record and the parties’ submissions and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Halpern v. SSA, No. 8:14-cv-02538-TDC (D. Md. Mar. 21, 2016). 2 We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this 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.
