Palmer Balthis v. Larry G. Massanari, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-1362
PALMER BALTHIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
LARRY G. MASSANARI, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
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-00-34-2)
Submitted: September 10, 2001 Decided: September 21, 2001
Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Roger W. Rutherford, Erick A. Bowman, WOLFE & FARMER, Norton, Vir-
ginia, for Appellant. James A. Winn, Regional Chief Counsel, Region
III, Patricia M. Smith, Deputy Chief Counsel, Taryn Goldstein,
Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Ruth E.
Plagenhoef, United States Attorney, John F. Corcoran, Assistant
United States Attorney, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Roanoke,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Palmer Balthis appeals the district court’s order granting
summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of Social Security in
Balthis’s action for disability insurance benefits under Title II
of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 401-433 (West Supp.
2001). Balthis worked in the coal mining industry until June 21,
1996, when he stopped working because of heart problems, back pain
and hearing loss. This court must uphold the denial of benefits if
the decision is supported by substantial evidence and the correct
legal standard was applied. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g); Craig v.
Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996). We have reviewed the en-
tire administrative record, including additional evidence submitted
to the Appeals Council, and find substantial evidence supports the
Administrative Law Judge’s determination that Balthis was able to
return to his past relevant work. Therefore, we affirm on the rea-
soning of the district court. Balthis v. Massanari, No. CA-00-34-2
(W.D. Va. Feb. 14, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-
terials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --