Laura Catherine Boggs v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-2140
LAURA CATHERINE BOGGS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:21-cv-00094-GMG-MJA)
Submitted: July 25, 2023 Decided: July 27, 2023
Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Dana W. Duncan, DUNCAN DISABILITY LAW, S.C., Nekoosa,
Wisconsin, for Appellant. Brian C. O’Donnell, Associate General Counsel, David N.
Mervis, Senior Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland; William Ihlenfeld, United States Attorney,
Morgan S. McKee, Assistant United States Attorney, Maija DiDomenico, Special Assistant
United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling,
West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Laura Catherine Boggs appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate
judge’s recommendation and upholding the administrative law judge’s (ALJ) denial of
Boggs’ 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 Boggs’ claims—particularly in terms
of analyzing the supportability and consistency of the significant manipulative restriction
advanced in the functional capacity evaluation, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c (2023)—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

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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. Boggs v. Kijakazi, No. 3:21-cv-00094-
GMG-MJA (N.D.W. Va. Sept. 6, 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 --