UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-2381
DEREK JOSEPH MOORE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Party-in-Interest.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (2:11-cv-00017-JPB-JES)
Submitted: July 26, 2012 Decided: August 20, 2012
Before DIAZ, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carter Zerbe, CARTER ZERBE & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Nora Koch, Acting Regional Chief
Counsel, Andrew C. Lynch, Acting Supervisory Counsel, SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; William J.
Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney, Chantal Jenkins, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Derek Moore appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his complaint for review of the Commissioner’s denial
of disability insurance benefits. On appeal, Moore argues that
the Commissioner ignored relevant medical evidence, failed to
accord proper weight to medical opinion evidence, and failed to
analyze the combined effect of his impairments in determining
that he was not entitled to benefits.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2006), we will “uphold
the factual findings of the Commissioner if they are supported
by substantial evidence and were reached through application of
the correct legal standard.” Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650,
653 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks, citations, and
alteration omitted). “Substantial evidence is such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.” Id. (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). We do not reweigh evidence or make
credibility determinations in evaluating whether a decision is
supported by substantial evidence; “[w]here conflicting evidence
allows reasonable minds to differ,” we defer to the
Commissioner’s decision. Id.
In order to establish entitlement to benefits, a
claimant must provide evidence of a medically determinable
3
impairment that precludes returning to past relevant work and
adjustment to other work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1508, 404.1520(g)
(2012). The Commissioner uses a five-step process to evaluate a
disability claim. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (2011). Pursuant to
this process, the Commissioner asks, in sequence, whether the
claimant: (1) worked during the alleged period of disability;
(2) had a severe impairment; (3) had an impairment that met or
equaled the severity of a listed impairment; (4) could return to
his past relevant work; and (5) if not, could perform any other
work in the national economy. Id. The claimant bears the
burden of proof at steps one through four, but the burden shifts
to the Commissioner at step five. See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482
U.S. 137, 146 n.5 (1987). If a decision regarding disability
can be made at any step of the process, however, the inquiry
ceases. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude
that the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial
evidence and was reached through application of the correct
legal standards. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
order. 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
4