Megan Wilson v. FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security

ON REHEARING
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-1575
MEGAN WILSON,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:22-cv-00087-RJC)
Submitted: September 11, 2024 Decided: May 13, 2025
Before AGEE, RUSHING, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded with instructions by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: George C. Piemonte, MARTIN, JONES & PIEMONTE, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Brian C. O’Donnell, Associate General Counsel, David E.
Somers, III, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland; SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Baltimore, Maryland; Dena J. King, United States Attorney, David N. Mervis, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Based on Defendant’s petition for panel rehearing, the panel grants panel rehearing,
vacates the prior panel opinion, and issues a new panel opinion below.
* * *
Petitioner Megan Wilson appeals the district court’s denial of Social Security
disability benefits. She argues that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) erred under
Shelley C. v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 61 F.4th 341 (4th Cir. 2023),
by relying on objective findings from mental status examinations to discredit her subjective
testimony about her symptoms. Because Wilson’s agency proceedings took place before
Shelley C. was decided, the ALJ did not have the opportunity to consider its application to
the instant case. And because Shelley C. was decided after briefing was complete in the
district court, Wilson did not develop any arguments in that court about Shelley C.’s
application beyond advising the court of Shelley C.’s existence.
We are “a court of review, not of first view.” Lovelace v. Lee, 472 F.3d 174, 203
(4th Cir. 2006) (quoting Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 718 n.7 (2005)). In keeping
with that understanding, we hereby vacate the district court’s decision and remand to the
district court for consideration in light of Shelley C.
VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS

-- 3 of 3 --