Tina Booker v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1828
TINA BOOKER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:21-cv-00348-REP)
Submitted: May 23, 2023 Decided: May 25, 2023
Before AGEE, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Clifford M. Farrell, MANRING & FARRELL, Columbus, Ohio, for
Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Jonathan T. Lucier, Assistant United
States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Tina Booker appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s
recommendation and upholding the administrative law judge’s (ALJ) denial of Booker’s
application for supplemental security income. “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. Specifically, the ALJ
applied the correct legal standards in evaluating Booker’s claims—particularly in terms of
analyzing the supportability and consistency of the proffered medical opinion evidence,
see 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c (2023)—and 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 the new regulatory scheme applicable to medical opinion

-- 2 of 3 --

3
evidence, an applicant’s “treating physicians are not 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. Booker v. Kijakazi,
No. 3:21-cv-00348-REP (E.D. Va. June 7, 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 of 3 --