Anderson v. Commissioner, Social Security , 127 F. App'x 96 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2247
LINDA ANDERSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER, Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, Chief
District Judge. (CA-03-52-2)
Submitted: March 28, 2005 Decided: April 6, 2005
Before WILLIAMS, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Martin Wegbreit, Esq., CENTRAL VIRGINIA LEGAL AID SOCIETY,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Donna L. Calvert, Regional
Chief Counsel, Taryn F. Jasner, Assistant Regional Counsel,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; John L. Brownlee, United States
Attorney, Julie C. Dudley, Assistant United States Attorney,
Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
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.
- 2 -
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.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -