Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Case v. Astrue, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views3 pages
    Kenneth Case appealed a magistrate judge's decision affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income by the Social Security Commissioner. The appellate court is required to uphold the Commissioner's decision if it is supported by substantial evidence and applies the correct law. The appellate court reviewed the case files and found no reversible errors. Therefore, the court affirmed the magistrate judge's decision to uphold the denial of benefits to Kenneth Case.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-09-11 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-1018

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Kenneth Case appealed a magistrate judge's decision affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income by the Social Security Commissioner. The appellate court is required to uphold the Commissioner's decision if it is supported by substantial evidence and applies the correct law. The appellate court reviewed the case files and found no reversible errors. Therefore, the court affirmed the magistrate judge's decision to uphold the denial of benefits to Kenneth Case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    4 views3 pages

    Case v. Astrue, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Kenneth Case appealed a magistrate judge's decision affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income by the Social Security Commissioner. The appellate court is required to uphold the Commissioner's decision if it is supported by substantial evidence and applies the correct law. The appellate court reviewed the case files and found no reversible errors. Therefore, the court affirmed the magistrate judge's decision to uphold the denial of benefits to Kenneth Case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 08-1018

    KENNETH M. CASE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security,
    Defendant - Appellee,
    and
    SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD,
    Party in Interest.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Anderson. Bruce H. Hendricks, Magistrate Judge.
    (8:06-cv-02293-BHH)

    Submitted:

    July 31, 2008

    Decided:

    September 11, 2008

    Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Richard J. Paul, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Kevin


    F. McDonald, Acting United States Attorney, Marvin J. Caughman,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Robert
    L. Van Saghi, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Deana R.
    Ertl-Lombardi, Regional Chief Counsel, Yvette G. Keesee, Deputy

    Regional Chief Counsel, Thomas S. Inman,


    Counsel, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee.

    Assistant

    Regional

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    - 2 -

    PER CURIAM:
    Kenneth M. Case appeals the magistrate judges order
    affirming the Commissioners decision to deny disability insurance
    benefits and supplemental security income.*
    decision

    to

    deny

    benefits

    if

    the

    We must uphold the

    decision

    is

    supported

    substantial evidence and the correct law was applied.

    by

    See 42

    U.S.C. 405(g) (2000); Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir.
    1996).

    We

    have

    thoroughly

    reviewed

    the

    parties

    briefs,

    administrative record, and the materials submitted in the joint


    appendix, and find no reversible error.

    Accordingly, we affirm.

    See Case v. Astrue, No. 8:06-cv-02293-BHH (D.S.C. Oct. 1, 2007).


    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 in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(c) (2000).
    - 3 -

    You might also like