Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Prior v. Chater, Commissioner, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Carol L. Prior appealed the denial of her claims for disability insurance benefits and supplementary security income. The magistrate judge granted summary judgment for the Commissioner, affirming the denial. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the magistrate judge's decision based on the reasoning in that opinion. The Fourth Circuit also noted that new medical reports submitted by Prior were not material enough to warrant remanding the case.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-06-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 98-2187

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Carol L. Prior appealed the denial of her claims for disability insurance benefits and supplementary security income. The magistrate judge granted summary judgment for the Commissioner, affirming the denial. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the magistrate judge's decision based on the reasoning in that opinion. The Fourth Circuit also noted that new medical reports submitted by Prior were not material enough to warrant remanding the case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    6 views2 pages

    Prior v. Chater, Commissioner, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Carol L. Prior appealed the denial of her claims for disability insurance benefits and supplementary security income. The magistrate judge granted summary judgment for the Commissioner, affirming the denial. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the magistrate judge's decision based on the reasoning in that opinion. The Fourth Circuit also noted that new medical reports submitted by Prior were not material enough to warrant remanding the case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 98-2187

    CAROL L. PRIOR,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    KENNETH S.
    SECURITY,

    APFEL,

    COMMISSIONER

    OF

    SOCIAL
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. Glen E. Conrad, Magistrate
    Judge. (CA-96-213-B)

    Submitted:

    January 29, 1999

    Decided:

    June 22, 1999

    Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Carol L. Prior, Appellant Pro Se. David Stephen Wiedner, SOCIAL
    SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Julie C.
    Dudley, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Carol L. Prior appeals the magistrate judges order granting
    the Commissioners motion for summary judgment, and affirming the
    Commissioners decision denying disability insurance benefits and
    supplementary security income.1

    We have reviewed the record and

    the magistrate judges opinion and find no reversible error.


    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge.2
    See Prior v. Apfel, No. CA-96-213-B (W.D. Va. Mar. 19, 1998).

    We

    dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
    are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate


    judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c) (1994).
    2

    We note that Prior submitted to this court medical reports


    prepared subsequent to the district courts final judgment and
    order. We find that the reports do not constitute material new
    evidence and thus no remand is warranted. See 42 U.S.C. 405(g)
    (1994); Wilkins v. Secretary, Dept of Health & Human Servs., 953
    F.2d 93, 95-96 (4th Cir. 1991).
    2

    You might also like