Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Young v. Chater, Commissioner, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    Ginger Young appealed the denial of her claim for social security disability benefits and supplemental security income. An administrative law judge had denied her claim, finding that her medical problems did not prevent her from performing past work and that her complaints of back pain were not fully credible. Both the district court and appellate court affirmed, agreeing that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence and applied the correct legal standards.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1997-01-03 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 95-2867

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Ginger Young appealed the denial of her claim for social security disability benefits and supplemental security income. An administrative law judge had denied her claim, finding that her medical problems did not prevent her from performing past work and that her complaints of back pain were not fully credible. Both the district court and appellate court affirmed, agreeing that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence and applied the correct legal standards.

    Copyright:

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

    Young v. Chater, Commissioner, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Ginger Young appealed the denial of her claim for social security disability benefits and supplemental security income. An administrative law judge had denied her claim, finding that her medical problems did not prevent her from performing past work and that her complaints of back pain were not fully credible. Both the district court and appellate court affirmed, agreeing that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence and applied the correct legal standards.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 95-2867

    GINGER L. YOUNG,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
    SECURITY,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District
    Judge. (CA-94-481-F)
    Argued:

    December 5, 1996

    Decided:

    January 3, 1997

    Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior


    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    ARGUED: H. Russell Vick, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant.
    Barbara Dickerson Kocher, Assistant United States Attorney,
    Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Janice McKenzie
    Cole, United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Ginger L. Young pursued a claim for supplemental security
    income and disability insurance benefits under the Social Security
    Act, alleging that she was disabled due to back pain and mental
    health problems.

    An administrative law judge (ALJ) denied bene-

    fits, reasoning that Young was not disabled because her medical
    problems did not prevent her from performing her past relevant work
    and that her subjective complaints of pain were not credible.
    After the Appeals Council denied review, Young filed the present
    petition. The district court held that the decision of the ALJ was
    legally correct, supported by substantial evidence, and should be
    affirmed.

    See Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996)

    ("Under the Social Security Act, [federal courts] must uphold the
    factual findings of the Secretary if they are supported by substantial evidence and were reached through application of the correct
    legal standard.").
    Young now appeals, asserting that the ALJ erred in determining
    that she could return to her past relevant work and in finding that
    her subjective complaints of pain were not fully credible. Having
    carefully considered the arguments of the parties and the record,
    we conclude that the district court was correct and affirm on its
    reasoning.

    Young v. Shalala, No. 94-481 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 16, 1995).

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like