Disability Law Blog

Brewer v. Barnhart, No. 05-1383 (4th Cir. September 27, 2005) Unpublished

"PER CURIAM:

John C. Brewer appeals the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to affirm the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance benefits from April 1, 1996, to September 30, 2000. We must uphold the decision to deny benefits if the decision is supported by 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). We have thoroughly reviewed the administrative record and the parties’ briefs and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Brewer v. Barnhart, No. CA-04-12-1 (N.D. W. Va. Feb. 8, 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"

Smalls v. Barnhart, No. 04-2520 (4th Cir. July 28, 2005) Unpublished

And the beat goes on:

"PER CURIAM:

Patricia A. Smalls appeals the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to affirm the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance benefits. We must uphold the decision to deny benefits if the decision is supported by 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). We have thoroughly reviewed the materials submitted in the joint appendix, the parties’ briefs, and the district court’s order, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Smalls v. Barnhart, No. CA-03-1573-4-27BH (D.S.C. filed Sept. 27, 2004 & entered Sept. 28, 2004). 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"

Anderson v. Commissioner, No. 04-2432 (4th Cir. July 5, 2005) Unpublished

Another unpublished boilerplate Fourth Circuit denial:

PER CURIAM:

Joseph M. Anderson appeals the district court's order affirming the Commissioner's decision to deny him Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income benefits. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Anderson v. Commissioner, No. CA-03-70 (W.D. Va. Sept. 14, 2004). 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

Fourth Circuit News: Judges Wilkinson and Luttig Exchange Harsh Appraisals

From the Wall Street Journal:

The opinions of Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, who is believed to be on the Bush administration's short-list for the Supreme Court, have been called "disingenuous," "indefensible" and "flatly untenable." Those of another front-runner, Judge J. Michael Luttig, were attacked as "incorrect," "beyond hyperbole" and imperiling "the entire federal regulatory scheme for wildlife and natural-resource conservation."

It is no surprise that liberal groups might rip the records of two high court contenders who are among the most conservative members of the nation's most conservative federal-appeals panel, the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va. As it happens, those criticisms of Judges Wilkinson and Luttig come from each other.

Coates v. Barnhart, No. 04-1142 (4th Cir. May 20, 2005) Unpublished

Standard Fare --

PER CURIAM:

Lionel J. Coates, Sr., appeals the magistrate judge’s order affirming the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income.* We must uphold the decision to deny benefits if the decision is supported by 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). We have thoroughly reviewed the administrative record and the briefs and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. Coates v. Barnhart, No. CA-02-2658-PWG (D. Md. Dec. 3, 2003). 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

Everette v. Barnhart, No. 04-2422 (4th Cir. May 13, 2005) Unpublished

PER CURIAM:

Priscilla Everette, personal representative of the estate of Maggie Everette, appeals the district court’s order granting the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s (“Commissioner”) motion for judgment on the pleadings and affirming the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance benefits, widow’s insurance benefits, and supplemental security income benefits to Maggie Everette prior to 1987. We must uphold the decision to deny benefits if the decision is supported by 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). Having thoroughly reviewed the administrative record, we agree with the district court that substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s final decision denying benefits. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Everette v. Barnhart, No. CA-02-48-H (E.D.N.C. Sept. 8, 2004). 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

Anderson v. Commissioner, No.04-2247 (4th Cir. April 6, 2005) Unpublished

The Fourth Circuit affirms another denial of benefits:

Linda F. Anderson appeals the district court's order affirming the Commissioner of Social Security's decision to deny her Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income benefits.

Anderson contends that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred by failing to give adequate weight to her treating psychiatrist's findings. Although the treating physician rule generally requires a court to accord greater weight to the testimony of a treating physician, the rule does not require that the testimony be given controlling weight. Hunter v. Sullivan, 993 F.2d 31, 35 (4th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). Thus, if a physician's opinion is not supported by clinical evidence or if it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence, it should be accorded significantly less weight. Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 590 (4th Cir. 1996). Under such circumstances, the ALJ holds the discretion to give less weight to the testimony of a treating physician in the face of persuasive contrary evidence. Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d 171, 178 (4th Cir. 2001). After careful review of the record, we conclude that the ALJ properly exercised his discretion in the face of the treating psychiatrist's unsupported conclusions, Chater, 76 F.3d at 590, and persuasive contrary evidence provided by three other doctors, Mastro, 270 F.3d at 178.

Anderson raises several other claims that she concedes were raised imperfectly below or not at all. It is well-settled that issues raised for the first time on appeal generally are not considered by this court. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that issues raised for the first time on appeal are generally waived absent exceptional circumstances); Pleasant Valley Hosp., Inc. v. Shalala, 32 F.3d 67, 70 (4th Cir. 1994) (it is inappropriate for courts reviewing appeals of agency decisions to consider arguments not raised before the administrative agency involved). Accordingly, we conclude that Anderson has forfeited her remaining claims. 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.

Bryant v. Barnhart, No. 04-2326 (4th Cir. April 1, 2005) Unpublished

The Fourth Circuit affirms a denial of disability benefits on a pro se appeal:

Donald G. Bryant appeals the district courts order adopting the proposed findings and recommendation of a magistrate judge and affirming the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration that Bryant is not entitled to disability insurance benefits. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Bryant v. Barnhart, No. CA-03-2135-2 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 8, 2004). 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.

Desai v. Commissioner, No. 04-2287 (4th Cir. Mar. 28, 2005) Unpublished

The Fourth Circuit affirms the denial of a concurrent claim for benefits in this pro se appeal:

"Salil V. Desai appeals the district court's order affirming the Commissioner of Social Security's decision denying Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income benefits. We must uphold the district court's disability determination if the decision is supported by 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). We have reviewed the record and the district court's order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Desai v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. CA- 03-93 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 6, 2004). 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."

Irving v. Barnhart, No. 04-2195 (4th Cir. Mar. 23, 2005) Unpublished

PER CURIAM:

Mary E. Irving appeals the district courts order affirming the Commissioners denial of Irvings claim for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits, and a subsequent order denying her motion for reconsideration. We must uphold the decision to deny benefits if the decision is supported by 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). We have thoroughly reviewed the administrative record, the parties briefs, and the district courts opinion and orders, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Irving v. Barnhart, No. CA-03-508-7 (W.D. Va. May 14, 2004; July 21, 2004). 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

Johnson v. Barnhart, No. 04-2290 (4th Cir. Mar. 10, 2005) Unpublished

The Fourth Circuit, in an unpublished per curiam opinion, affirms the denial of SSI benefits for a pro se appellant:

PER CURIAM:

Jo Anne Johnson appeals the district court's order granting the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration's (Commissioner) motion for judgment and affirming the Commissioner's denial of supplemental security income benefits. We must uphold the decision to deny benefits if the decision is supported by 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). Having thoroughly reviewed the administrative record, we agree with the district court that substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's final decision denying supplemental security income benefits. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Johnson v. Barnhart, No. CA-03- 60-2-BO (E.D.N.C. Oct. 6, 2004). 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

Slaughter v. Barnhart, No. 04-1661 (4th Cir. Feb. 23, 2005) Unpublished

In a four-page unpublished per curiam decision, the Fourth Circuit affirms the District Court's decision which rejected a Magistrate Judge's recommendation and instead affirmed the ALJ's denial of benefits:

We conclude substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that Slaughter failed to demonstrate he is mentally retarded under 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 12.00(A) (2004). We further conclude the ALJ did not err when it found Slaughter’s impairments do not prevent him from performing his past work as a floor cleaner or foam cutter. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court. 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.

Claimants are now 1-7 in 2005 in the Fourth.

Maxfield v. Commisioner, Social Security Administration, No. 04-2126 (4th Cir. Feb. 17, 2005) Unpublished

And another:

PER CURIAM:

William C. Maxfield appeals the district court’s order upholding the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration to deny Maxfield’s application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Maxfield v. Comm’r, No. CA-03-85-2 (W.D. Va. July 1, 2004). 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

Horton v. Barnhart, No. 04-2068 (4th Cir. Feb. 17, 2005) Unpublished

Caroll Horton's appeal receives the standard treatment:

PER CURIAM:

Carroll N. Horton (“Horton”) appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and affirming the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration that he was no longer disabled, as defined within Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 401-433 (West 2003 & Supp. 2004). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Horton v. Barnhart, No. CA-03-669-0-17BD (D.S.C. Apr. 1, 2004). 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

Carlyle v. Social Security Adminstration, No. 04-2217 (4th Cir. Feb. 16, 2005) Unpublished

The Fourth Circuit, in an unpublished per curiam opinion, affirms a denial of a concurrent claim on a pro se appeal:

PER CURIAM:

Gloria A. Carlyle appeals the district courts order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants in her action challenging the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Carlyle v. Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CA-03- 629-3 (E.D. Va. July 23, 2004). 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

Pafford v. Barnhart, No. 94-1640 (4th Cir. Feb. 16, 2005) Unpublished

The Fourth Circuit, in an unpublished per curiam opinion, affirms a denial of Social Security disability and SSI benefits:

PER CURIAM:

Debbie Pafford appeals the district courts order affirming the Commissioners denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We must uphold the decision to deny benefits if the decision is supported by 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). We have thoroughly reviewed the administrative record and the briefs and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Pafford v. Barnhart, No. CA-02-186-2 (W.D. Va. Mar. 19, 2004). 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

Huff v. Barnhart, No. 04-1168 (4th Cir. Feb. 1, 2005) Unpublished

In a per curiam decision, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction when the Commissioner refused to reopen the claimant's prior application for disability benefits. The decision is interesting in at least two respects. First, it follows oral argument, which, in Social Security appeals in the Fourth Circuit, is granted only about 10% of the time. Second, it cites a Kansas District Court opinion as authority for rejecting claimant's argument that the ALJ was bound by a statement he made during the hearing that indicated he would pay the case:

Even assuming that the ALJ's comments at the hearing could fairly be construed as a finding of disability, "the ALJ's written decision, not his questions at the hearing, control the findings subject to review." Woods v. Barnhart, No. 03-2592-KJV, 2004 U.S. District LEXIS 12969, at *22 (D. Kan. July 12, 2004). Thus, this argument for reopening under § 404.988(c)(8) is also without merit.

Although characteristically unpublished, this is the second Social Security opinion this year in which the Court has revealed the issue it considered and decided. Is this a small signal that Social Security cases may be moving out of the Fourth's substantive doghouse?

Speculation About 4th Circuit Judges Luttig and Wilkinson for Supreme Court Nominations

Via How Appealing: The New York Sun contemplates the possible nominations of two Fourth Circuit conservatives, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III and Judge J. Michael Luttig, to the Supreme Court.

(Fun Fact: In the 130-year history of the federal circuit courts, not a single Fourth Circuit judge has ever served on the Supreme Court. See here for the background.)

Sanderlin v. Barnhart, No. 04-1286 (4th Cir. Jan. 18, 2005) Unpublished

In a rare appeal by the Commissioner, with an equally rare outcome, the Fourth Circuit affirms the district court's order remanding the case for further development of the record:

Our review of the Commissioner's decision is limited to an inquiry into whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the Commissioner, and whether the correct legal standards were applied. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2000); Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990). When there are conflicting physician opinions, as in this case, we have required explicit indications as to the weight given to all the evidence. See Gordon v. Schweiker, 725 F.2d 231, 235 (4th Cir. 1984) (citing cases); see also Murphy v. Bowen, 810 F.2d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 1987).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's order and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Sanderlin v. Barnhart, No. CA-02-62-2-1BO (E.D.N.C. Dec. 29, 2003). 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.

Osgar v. Barnhart, No. 04-1685 (4th Cir., Jan. 5, 2005) Unpublished

The Fourth Circuit begins the 2005 Social Security season the same way it ended 2004, with a per curiam affirmance of a denial of disability benefits. In fact, no disability claimant obtained relief in the Fourth Circuit last year via published or unpublished decision:

PER CURIAM:

Bryan Osgar appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and upholding the Commissioner's denial of Osgar's application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Osgar v. Barnhart, No. CA-02-2552-0-18BD (D.S.C. Mar. 29, 2004). 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

Singleton v. Social Security Administration, No. 04-1510 (4th Cir. Dec. 20, 2004)

The Fourth Circuit, in a per curiam opinion, affirms the denial of benefits to a pro se appellant:

Silvia G. Singleton appeals from the district court’s order dismissing her civil action against the Social Security Administration. Our review of the record and the district court’s opinion adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Singleton v. Social Security Admin., No. CA-03-3242-3 (D.S.C. Mar. 24, 2004). We deny Singleton’s motion for preparation of a transcript at government expense and 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.

Profile of Fourth Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III

The Richmond Times-Dispatch has another in a series of articles on the Fourth Circuit; this time, a profile of Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson:

"He is highly respected within the 4th Circuit and nationally," said Rodney A. Smolla, dean of the University of Richmond's law school. "I would describe him as a moderate conservative in most areas. He has an extremely personable and gregarious personality."

"Lawyers describe him as a vigorous questioner during oral arguments on appeals cases and a judge who treats each case as if it is the only case before him. He shows up for arguments well prepared, lawyers say - and some add, with his mind all but made up as to how the decision will go."

"If Wilkinson is elevated to the Supreme Court, one lawyer said, he will have to "back off his tendency to dominate every argument that he has. He's very aggressive on the bench - he does it with a smile, but he's very aggressive. You know instantly where he's coming from."

Steffey v. Commissioner, No. 04-1382 (4th Cir. Nov. 24, 2004) (Unpublished)

The Fourth Circuit affirms the denial of disabilty benefits:

PER CURIAM:

Harold Steffey appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Commissioner in this action challenging the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Steffey v. Commissioner, No. CA-03-2 (W.D. Va. Feb. 5, 2004). 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

Carter v. Barnhart, No. 04-1409 (4th Cir. Nov. 22, 2004) (Unpublished)

Add Carter v. Barnhart to the list of one-paragraph affirmations the Court now routinely issues in Social Security cases:

PER CURIAM:

Glenn W. Carter appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment for the Commissioner and affirming the Commissioner's denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Carter v. Barnhart, No. CA-03-8 W.D. Va. Feb. 4, 2003). 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

Stanley v. Barnhart, No. 04-1858 (4th Cir. Nov. 18, 2004) (Unpublished)

In a rare multiple-paragraph per curiam opinion, the Fourth Circuit has affirmed a denial of an SSI claim. (Claimants are now 0-24 in 2004 in the Fourth Circuit.)

Interestingly, the Court acknowledged that Stanley "suffers from back and knee problems, as well as carpal tunnel syndrome, borderline intellectual functioning, depression, and anxiety," yet no mention is made of 12.05C or any other listing that implicates BIF. According to the decision, Stanley argued that the ALJ improperly substitued his own opinion for that of the medical experts in the case and that the ALJ improperly weighed the RFC assessments of the state agency medical consultants. The Court rejects these arguments because Stanley's "daily life activities were not affected to the extent she alleged."

Speculation About the Fourth Circuit

Via SW Virginia Law Blog:  The Richmond Times-Dispatch has this article about the status of three Fourth Circuit nominees: Claude Allen, William J. Haynes and Terrence Boyle. And the President's second term may see some Fourth Circuit judges in contention for seats on the Supreme Court:

In part because the appeals court has been in the forefront of cases involving terrorism and enemy combatants, and is regarded as a recruiting ground for Supreme Court nominees, Bush's choices will get close scrutiny again. . . .

The 4th Circuit currently has 13 full-time judges, nine of them named by Republicans and four by Democrats. It has developed a reputation as perhaps the most conservative of 12 regional appeals courts nationwide.

Two of the court's intellectual leaders, J. Harvie Wilkinson III and J. Michael Luttig, are Virginians reported to be on a short list of potential Bush nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court. If one of them were named and confirmed, then Bush would have another 4th Circuit vacancy to fill.

Ingle v. Barnhart, No. 03-2332 (4th Cir. Sept. 24, 2004) Unpublished

The Fourth Circuit has issued its 21st unpublished per curiam opinion of the year affirming a denial of disability benefits. (Two other appeals have been dismissed in 2004, making appellants now 0-23. Eleven of the twenty-three were pro se appeals.) Full text follows:

Janice C. Ingle appeals the magistrate judge’s decision upholding the decision of the Commissioner to deny Ingle’s application for disability insurance benefits. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Ingle v. Barnhart, No. CA-03-7 (W.D.N.C. filed Aug. 19, 2003; entered Aug. 20, 2003). 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.

Watson v.Commissioner, No. 03-2516 (4th Cir. Aug. 24, 2004) (Unpublished)

Social Security disability claimant's pro se appeal is dismissed for failure to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation:

Beulah R. Watson seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on Watson’s failure to exhaust her administrative remedies. In his report and recommendation, the magistrate judge advised Watson that failure to file timely objections to the recommendation would waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Watson failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Watson has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 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.

Berry v. Massanari, No. 04-1572 (4th Cir. Aug. 23, 2004) (Unpublished)

A pro se Social Security disability litgant loses at the Fourth Circuit. Full opinion follows:

Frances Berry appeals the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to affirm the Social Security Administration Commissioner’s denial of disability benefits. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Berry v. Massanari, No. CA-01-3137-8-12 (D.S.C. Mar. 24, 2004). 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.

Nelson v. Barnhart, No. 04-1241 (4th Cir. Aug. 18, 2004) (Unpublished)

Danielle Nelson appeals the district court’s order dismissing this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. See Nelson v. Barnhart, No. CA-03-842 (E.D. Va. filed Dec. 19, 2003, entered Dec. 22, 2003). 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.

I'm sure there's a story behind this one. By my reckoning, appellants are now 0-20 in the Fourth Circuit in 2004.

Chapman v. Social Security Administration, No. 04-1320 (4th Cir. Aug. 17, 2004) (Unpublished)

Standard unpublished per curiam decision affirming a denial of Social Security disability benefits, this time involving a pro se appellant. The opinion follows:

Ramon Charles Chapman appeals the magistrate judge’s oder denying his motion for reconsideration of his Social Security action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. See Chapman v. Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CA-2-04 (E.D. Va. filed Feb. 11, 2004; entered Feb. 12, 2004). 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.

Barfield v. Barnhart, No. 04-1048 (4th Cir. Aug. 10, 2004) (Unpublished)

Another fruitless appeal resulting in another one paragraph, unpublished per curiam opinion. In its entirety:

Beverly Barfield appeals the district court’s order dismissing her action seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision to deny Barfield’s application for disability insurance benefits. We have reviewed the record, the district court’s opinion, and the decision of the administrative law judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Barfield v. Barnhart, No. CA-03-208-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Oct. 3, 2003). 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.

Church v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 03-2451 (4th Cir. July 26, 2004) Unpublished

Like the Energizer Bunny, the Fourth Circuit affirms yet another Social Security disablity denial without discussion in an unpublished, per curiam opinion. Boilerplate text follows:

"Michael A. Church appeals the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We must uphold the decision to deny benefits if the decision is supported by 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). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the briefs and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Church v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. CA-02-98-2 (W.D. Va. Oct. 30, 2003). 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."

In the immortal words of Dante:  Lasciate ogni speranza voi ch'entrate.

Hill v. Commissioner, No. 03-2240 (4th Cir. July 20, 2004) Unpublished

For those keeping score, the Fourth Circuit has issued another unpublished per curiam decision in a Social Security disability case. Unlike most of these decisions which are a single paragraph, this one contains two paragraphs which actually mention the merits of the claim; however, the Court cites no caselaw, process unification ruling or other precedent for the routine affirmation of the ALJ's decision.

How Helms & Thurmond Shaped the Fourth Circuit

Via SW Virginia Law Blog: In the Richmond Times-Dispatch is this article chronicling the recent history of judicial nominations to the Fourth Circuit and the impact those nominees have had on Fourth Circuit jurisprudence.

From a Social Security disability practitioner's perspective, I can tell you that the impact has been devastating. The Fourth Circuit almost never schedules oral argument in Social Security disability cases, and the list of one paragraph per curiam decisions affirming ALJ decisions without discussion continues to grow. If you become disabled in the Fourth Circuit, don't look to the Court for help.

Stalls v. Barnhart, No. 03-1707 (4th Cir. Feb. 18, 2004) Unpublished

More guidance from the Fourth Circuit in this unpublished per curiam opinion, only here, the appellant was represented:

PER CURIAM:

Jennifer L. Stalls appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to uphold the Commissioner’s denial of Stalls’ application for supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits. We have reviewed the record and briefs and find that the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and the correct law was applied. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Stalls v. Barnhart, No. CA-01-414-1 (M.D.N.C. May 2, 2003). 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

Wright v. Barnhart, No. 03-1978 (4th Cir. Feb. 13, 2004) Unpublished

An standard unpublished affirmation via per curiam opinion in a case involving a pro se litigant:

PER CURIAM:

Linda M. Wright seeks review of the district court’s decision, adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation, affirming the Commissioner’s denial of social security disability benefits pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f) (2003). Our review of the record discloses that the Commissioner’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. In addition,we decline to consider the new evidence that Wright submitted on appeal because it fails to meet the requirements set forth in Borders v. Heckler, 777 F.2d 954, 955 (4th Cir. 1985). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See Wright v. Barnhart, No. CA-02-62-2 (W.D. Va. July 29, 2003). 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

Herron v. Commissioner, No. 03-1892 (4th Cir. Feb. 10, 2004) Unpublished

The Fourth Circuit affirms another denial of disablity benefits via an unpublished per curiam opinion. The text of the decision follows:

PER CURIAM:

Mary R. Herron appeals the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner’s denial of social security disability and supplemental security income benefits. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error.

We must uphold the Commissioner’s disability determination if it is supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2000); Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990). Having thoroughly reviewed the administrative record, we agree with the district court that substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s final decision denying disability benefits. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Herron v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. CA-02-60-2 (W.D. Va. June 19, 2003). 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

Fourth Circuit Adopts Proposed New Local Rule 10(d)

On January 28th, the Fourth Circuit published a notice which reads in part:

Proposed new Local Rule 10(d) requires partial redaction of certain personal data from documents filed with the Court. In compliance with the United States Judicial Conference Policy on Privacy and Public Access to Electronic Case Files, parties must partially redact social security numbers, dates of birth, financial account numbers, names of minor children, and (for criminal cases) home addresses from documents filed with the Court. Parties will be permitted to file documents containing unredacted information under seal if they also file a redacted copy for the public file. The proposed new local rule also provides detailed information on the Court’s sealing procedures.

The new rule is effective March 29, 2004, subject to revisions in light of any comments received on or before March 26, 2004.

Reasonable Minds May Differ

From The Volokh Conspiracy:  (I've addeded bullet points to aid comprehension):

"Convoluted Courts: I commented yesterday on the rather difficut-to-decipher lineup of the nine Justices in the campaign finance case. Thorne Loggins sent me this beauty, a true classic of the genre, from a decision of the full Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (United States v. Rhynes, 218 F.3d 310 (2000)):

Judgment vacated and new trial awarded by published opinion.

• Judge KING announced the judgment of the Court, in which Judge WIDENER, Judge WILKINS, Judge LUTTIG, Judge WILLIAMS, Judge MICHAEL, Judge DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, and Judge TRAXLER joined;
• wrote the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III, in which Judge WILKINS, Judge WILLIAMS, Judge MICHAEL, Judge DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, and Judge TRAXLER joined;
• wrote the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts IV and V, in which Judge WIDENER, Judge WILKINS, Judge LUTTIG, Judge WILLIAMS, Judge MICHAEL, Judge DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ and Judge TRAXLER joined; and
• wrote an opinion with respect to Parts I and II in which Judge WIDENER (except perhaps for a footnote), Judge LUTTIG (in part), Judge MICHAEL, and Judge DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ joined.
• Judge WIDENER wrote an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
• Judge WILKINS wrote an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Judge WILLIAMS and Judge TRAXLER joined.
• Judge LUTTIG wrote an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
• Chief Judge WILKINSON wrote a dissenting opinion, in which Judge NIEMEYER joined.
• Judge NIEMEYER wrote a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Judge WILKINSON joined and in which Judge TRAXLER joined with respect to Parts I and II.

And in Judge Widener’s separate opinion: "I concur in the result and in Parts I, II, IV, and V of Judge King's opinion, except, perhaps, n. 11, maj. at 320, and will explain below. . . . So far as this concurrence may be at odds with it, then, I may not agree with n. 11."

Long Article on the Fourth Circuit

This morning's Baltimore Sun has a article on the conservatism of the Fourth Circuit and the judiciary generally:

Conservatives herald the Fourth Circuit, which handles appeals from Maryland to South Carolina, as a model of how difficult social and legal issues should be settled. They see a panel of judges with the courage to render proper rulings without regard for their popularity. Many liberals, though, see the Fourth Circuit as akin to the administration's rubber stamp. It is, they assert, a court that tends to side with government against the individual and business against the employee and to embrace a hard line on terror suspects and civil rights.

"If you can stack the courts of appeals, you're going to get hundreds of decisions that come out not only in a conservative fashion but a highly doctrinaire fashion," said Michael Green-berger, a University of Maryland law professor who served in the Clinton Justice Department. The presidency, the House of Representatives, the Senate and now the courts - never in American political history has it been the case that all four major powers of government are aligned in a doctrinaire position," Greenberger said.

July 24, 2004 update: The link to the Sun article no longer works (article is now archived) but a 1999 article from the NY Times gives the same flavor of things.

Fourth Circuit Practice: An Enigma Inside a Conundrum

Over at How Appealing, Howard Bashman seeks the elusive rationale behind the Fourth Circuit's practice of vacating its opinions in cases that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review on the merits. If you have the answer, let Mr. Bashman know.

Per Curiam Redux

Here's Yost v. Barnhart, __ F.3rd __ (4th Cir. No. 03-1512), another in a long line of "affirmed by unpublished per curiam" opinions. Mr. Yost was limited to light work by the ALJ; the Court (without reweighing the evidence) thought the ALJ was being generous.

Background on Judge Dennis Shedd--Fourth Circuit Nominee

From the Know Your Judges department comes this op/ed piece authored by Erwin Chemerinsky, a visiting professor at Duke Law School. A snippet follows:

"At his Judiciary Committee hearing on June 27, Shedd admitted that a plaintiff has never won an employment discrimination jury trial in his court in his 11 years on the bench. Shedd tried to justify this by saying that discrimination suits never win in South Carolina. But this is just wrong. During Shedd's tenure on the federal bench, there have been at least 21 verdicts in favor of plaintiffs in other federal courts in South Carolina, totaling over $7 million in damages for plaintiffs.

Shedd consistently dismisses race and gender discrimination cases before trial, often overruling recommendations from magistrate judges to the contrary. Judge Shedd has heard 40 employment discrimination cases filed by African Americans and granted summary judgment in whole or in part, a win without even a trial, for the defendants in 39 of them."

Addendum: Judge Shedd was later confirmed on November 19, 2002.

Walls v. Barnhart, 296 F.3d 287 (4th Cir. 2002)

The Court holds that substantial evidence, not "special clarity," is all that is required when a VE testifies that a person who needs a sit/stand option can perform unskilled light or sedentary jobs, even though that testimony appears to conflict with Social Security Ruling (SSR) 83-12.