Devin Maravel v. Kilolo Kijakazi ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1835 Doc: 28 Filed: 02/10/2023 Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-1835
DEVIN JAMES MARAVEL,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:20-cv-00624-CCE-LPA)
Argued: January 26, 2023 Decided: February 10, 2023
Before KING and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: David Randolph Paletta, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. David E.
Somers, III, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee. ON BRIEF: Brian O’Donnell, Regional Chief Counsel, Charles Kawas,
Supervisory Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Sandra J. Hairston, Acting United
States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1835 Doc: 28 Filed: 02/10/2023 Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Devin James Maravel applied at age 18 for supplemental security income and
disabled adult child’s benefits. An ALJ held a hearing and then determined that Maravel
was not disabled and therefore not entitled to benefits. After exhausting his administrative
appeals, Maravel filed a complaint in federal court. The district court granted a motion for
judgment on the pleadings affirming the denial of benefits. Maravel then filed this appeal.
For the reasons set forth within, we now affirm.
We review a district court’s grant of a motion for judgment on the pleadings de
novo. See Woods v. Berryhill, 888 F.3d 686, 691 (4th Cir. 2018). We will affirm an ALJ’s
disability determination “when an ALJ has applied correct legal standards and the ALJ’s
factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.” Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632,
634 (4th Cir. 2015).
To determine whether an individual is disabled, and therefore entitled to Social
Security Disability (SSD) benefits, an ALJ uses a multi-step sequential evaluation process.
See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). After “the ALJ asks at step one whether the claimant has
been working; [and] at step two, whether the claimant’s medical impairments meet the
regulations’ severity and duration requirements; at step three, [the ALJ determines]
whether the medical impairments meet or equal an impairment listed in the
regulations . . . .” Woods v. Berryhill, 888 F.3d 686, 689 (4th Cir. 2018) (quoting Mascio
v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632, 634 (4th Cir. 2015)). When evaluating mental disorders at step
three the ALJ rates the claimant’s limitations in four areas of mental functioning:
(1) understanding, remembering, or applying information; (2) interacting with others;
2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1835 Doc: 28 Filed: 02/10/2023 Pg: 3 of 4
(3) concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace; and (4) adapting and managing oneself.
20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1 § 12.00A.2.b. The ALJ uses a five-point rating scale
consisting of none, mild, moderate, marked, and extreme limitation. Id. § 12.00F.2. To
meet or equal a mental disorder listed in the regulations, a claimant must have an extreme
limitation in one or marked limitation in two of these areas. Id. § 12.00A.2.b. If the
claimant satisfies this standard he is presumptively disabled and entitled to benefits. 20
C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4).
If a claimant’s medical impairments do not meet or equal an impairment listed in
the regulations, and therefore entitle him to presumptive disability, the ALJ must determine
a claimant’s residual functional capacity (RFC). Id. The RFC is a measure of the most a
claimant can still do despite his impairments. Id. After determining a claimant’s RFC, the
ALJ will consider whether the claimant can perform his past relevant work and, if not,
whether jobs that the claimant can perform “exist in significant numbers in the national
economy.” Id. § 404.1560(c).
Maravel argues that the ALJ erred in ruling that his mental impairments do not meet
the listing criteria for presumptive disability at step three, by finding that his functional
limitations are mild or moderate, and not marked or severe. He also asserts that the ALJ
erred in calculating his RFC as it pertains to his mental health. Maravel contends that both
the step three and RFC determinations conflict with record evidence of his mental
impairments. He specifically argues that these rulings conflict with records he submitted
from a school he attended in his teenage years and from medical providers he has seen
since he submitted his application at age 18.
3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1835 Doc: 28 Filed: 02/10/2023 Pg: 4 of 4
Although the records that Maravel focuses on indicate a high degree of impairment
in some areas relevant to his ability to work, other evidence in the record shows less severe
limitations and supports the ALJ’s findings that, overall, Maravel’s impairments do not
warrant presumptive disability or a more limited RFC calculation. In reviewing the
decisions of the ALJ, we do not “reweigh conflicting evidence, make credibility
determinations, or substitute our judgment for that of the [ALJ].” Johnson v. Barnhart,
434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th Cir. 2005). When faced with conflicting evidence in the record,
the responsibility to decide which evidence to credit lies with the ALJ. Id.If substantial evidence in the record supports an ALJ’s determination, we do not
second guess the ALJ’s decisions resolving conflicts in the record evidence. Here there is
substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s determination that Maravel’s
impairments do not meet the step three listing criteria and to support the ALJ’s calculation
of his RFC. Thus, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
AFFIRMED
4