Curry v. Apfel, Commissioner ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 99-2048
    DANNY R. CURRY,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis-
    trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief
    District Judge. (CA-98-422-2)
    Submitted:   December 14, 1999            Decided:   January 5, 2000
    Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    William Stewart Thompson, COOK & COOK, Madison, West Virginia, for
    Appellant. James A. Winn, Regional Chief Counsel, Eda L. Giusti,
    Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of the Generaql Counsel, SOCIAL
    SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Rebecca A.
    Betts, United States Attorney, Kelly R. Curry, Assistant United
    States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Danny R. Curry appeals the district court’s order affirming
    the Commissioner’s decision to deny disability benefits.    We have
    reviewed the joint appendix, administrative record, and the dis-
    trict court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magis-
    trate judge and find no reversible error.   Accordingly, we affirm
    substantially on the reasoning of the district court.    See   Curry
    v. Apfel, No. CA-98-422-2 (S.D.W. Va. July 1, 1999).    In addition,
    we note that it was not error to rely on the comparative qualifi-
    cations of those who evaluated Curry’s I.Q. and give greater weight
    to the opinions of medical personnel with superior credentials.
    See Long v. Bowen, 
    866 F.2d 1066
    , 1067 (8th Cir. 1989).     We dis-
    pense 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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 99-2048

Filed Date: 1/5/2000

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014