Edna Gigon v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1476 Doc: 20 Filed: 12/20/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1476
EDNA GIGON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Asheville. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (1:20-cv-00133-FDW)
Submitted: September 26, 2023 Decided: December 20, 2023
Before THACKER and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Charlotte W. Hall, ARROWOOD AND HALL, PLLC, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Dena J. King, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina; David N. Mervis, Special Assistant
United States Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1476 Doc: 20 Filed: 12/20/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Edna Gigon appeals the district court’s order upholding the Administrative Law
Judge’s (ALJ) denial of Gigon’s application for disability insurance benefits. “In social
security proceedings, a court of appeals applies the same standard of review as does the
district court. That is, a reviewing court must uphold the determination when an ALJ has
applied correct legal standards and the ALJ’s factual findings are supported by substantial
evidence.” Brown v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 873 F.3d 251, 267 (4th Cir. 2017) (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted). “Substantial evidence is that which a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It consists of more than a mere
scintilla of evidence but may be less than a preponderance.” Pearson v. Colvin, 810 F.3d
204, 207 (4th Cir. 2015) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “In reviewing for
substantial evidence, we do not undertake to reweigh conflicting evidence, make credibility
determinations, or substitute our judgment for that of the ALJ. Where conflicting evidence
allows reasonable minds to differ as to whether a claimant is disabled, the responsibility
for that decision falls on the ALJ.” Hancock v. Astrue, 667 F.3d 470, 472 (4th Cir. 2012)
(brackets, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted).
We have reviewed the record and perceive no reversible error. The ALJ applied the
correct legal standards in evaluating Gigon’s claim for benefits, and the ALJ’s factual
findings are supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ’s decision not to include
additional limitations in Gigon’s residual functional capacity is supported by substantial
evidence, and his basis for declining to do so is reasonably apparent from the decision. The
ALJ’s assessment of Gigon’s subjective complaints is also supported by substantial
2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1476 Doc: 20 Filed: 12/20/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment upholding the denial of
benefits. Gigon v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:20-cv-00133-FDW (W.D.N.C. Mar. 29,
2022). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3