The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
01-1747•Kathy M. Bledsoe v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
01-1747Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJan 15, 2002
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-1747
KATHY M. BLEDSOE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, Senior
District Judge. (CA-00-43-2)
Submitted: December 17, 2001 Decided: January 15, 2002
Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Susan Kipp McLaughlin, MCLAUGHLIN & CURRY, Fairmont, West Virginia,
for Appellant. James A. Winn, Regional Chief Counsel, Region III,
Patricia M. Smith, Deputy Chief Counsel, Nicholas Cerulli, Assis-
tant Regional Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Patrick M.
Flatley, United States Attorney, Helen Campbell Altmeyer, Assistant
United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Kathy M. Bledsoe appeals the district court’s order granting
summary judgment to the Commissioner in her action seeking judicial
review of the Commissioner’s decision to deny Bledsoe’s application
for disability insurance benefits. We have reviewed the record,
the district court’s opinion, and the decision of the adminis-
trative law judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Bledsoe v. Com-
missioner of Social Security, No. CA-00-43-2 (N.D. W. Va. Mar. 28,
2001). 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 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.