Andrew J. Moore v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1764
ANDREW J. MOORE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (1:23-cv-00286-GCM)
Submitted: February 5, 2026 Decided: June 9, 2026
Before WILKINSON, BENJAMIN, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Carol Goins, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Brian C. O’Donnell,
Associate General Counsel, David E. Somers, III, Dena J. King, United States Attorney,
Andrew R. De Holl, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the General
Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Andrew J. Moore appeals the district court’s order upholding the Administrative
Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of Moore’s applications 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) (citation modified). “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) (citation modified). “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) (citation modified).
We have reviewed the record and perceive no reversible error. The ALJ applied the
correct legal standards in evaluating Moore’s claim for benefits, and the ALJ’s factual
findings are supported by substantial evidence. In addition, the ALJ’s factual findings are
supported by substantial evidence.
In determining Moore’s residual functional capacity (RFC), the ALJ found that
Moore’s carpal tunnel was not a severe impairment and was expected to improve with
treatment based on Moore’s own testimony that: (1) he developed the condition from

-- 2 of 3 --

3
playing video games; and (2) he would immediately cease that activity. Moreover, the
record reflects that the ALJ considered evidence about Moore’s need for individualized
education services in high school when determining his RFC. This consideration is
reflected in the ALJ’s ultimate finding: that Moore could perform unskilled jobs that did
not require a high school education. Finally, the record does not support Moore’s claim
that the ALJ incorrectly interpreted the testimony of the vocational expert. Rather, the
vocational expert suggested specific occupations in the national economy based on
Moore’s age, education, work experience, and RFC. The ALJ, in turn, concluded that
Moore was capable of working jobs in the national economy.
Substantial evidence also supports the ALJ’s decision to discredit certain medical
evidence. When explaining its decision to discredit Dr. Reavis’s medical opinion, the ALJ
noted that the opinion, which was based heavily on self-reports, was inconsistent with both
Dr. Reavis’s own clinical observations and other medical evidence in the record.
Having considered Moore’s remaining arguments, we find none warrant a different
conclusion. The ALJ’s decision, including its factual findings, is supported by substantial
evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment upholding the denial of
benefits. Moore v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:23-cv-00286-GCM (W.D.N.C. June 12,
2024). 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 --