USCA4 Appeal: 21-2337 Doc: 22 Filed: 10/07/2022 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-2337
DAVID COTHRAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Orangeburg. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (5:20-cv-02321-TMC)
Submitted: September 19, 2022 Decided: October 7, 2022
Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Dana W. Duncan, DUNCAN DISABILITY LAW, S.C., Nekoosa,
Wisconsin, for Appellant. Brian O’Donnell, Regional Chief Counsel, Charles Kawas,
Supervisory Attorney, David E. Somers, III, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania; Corey F. Ellis, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2337 Doc: 22 Filed: 10/07/2022 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
David Cothran appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s
recommendation and upholding the administrative law judge’s (ALJ) denial of Cothran’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) (cleaned up). “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) (cleaned up). “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)
(cleaned up).
We have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error. We conclude that the
ALJ applied the correct legal standards in evaluating Cothran’s claims—particularly in
terms of analyzing the supportability and consistency of the proffered medical opinion
evidence, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c (2022)—and that the ALJ’s factual findings are
supported by substantial evidence, accord Bowers v. Kijakazi, 40 F.4th 872, 875 (8th Cir.
2022) (recognizing that, under § 404.1520c, an applicant’s “treating physicians are not
2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2337 Doc: 22 Filed: 10/07/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
entitled to special deference,” and reviewing ALJ’s analysis under this regulation for
substantial evidence). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment upholding the
ALJ’s decision. Cothran v. Kijakazi, No. 5:20-cv-02321-TMC (D.S.C. Oct. 1, 2021).
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