Connie S. Lawson v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-1361
CONNIE S. LAWSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, District
Judge. (CA-98-168)
Submitted: October 31, 2000 Decided: November 15, 2000
Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Erick A. Bowman, S. Scott Baker, WOLFE & FARMER, Norton, Virginia,
for Appellant. James A. Winn, Regional Chief Counsel, Region III,
Patricia M. Smith, Deputy Chief Counsel, Eda Giusti, Assistant
Regional Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Robert P. Crouch, Jr.,
United States Attorney, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Connie S. Lawson appeals the district court’s order granting
summary judgment to the Commissioner of Social Security in her
action seeking review of the Commissioner’s decision denying her
application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental
security income. On appeal, Lawson argues that the Administrative
Law Judge erred in determining that her IQ was 74, instead of below
70, as one test demonstrated, and erred in rejecting the work
assessment of a consulting physician, Dr. Kaur.
We have reviewed the record, briefs, and pertinent case law in
this matter. Our review persuades us that the district court
correctly accepted the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
found that the Commissioner’s decision denying benefits is based on
substantial evidence. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of
the district court. See Lawson v. Apfel, No. CA-98-168 (W.D. Va.
Feb. 9, 2000). 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

-- 2 of 2 --