Tony Hill v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 4th Cir. 1990 . Contrary to Hill’s argument, the ALJ…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2240
TONY HILL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
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-02-199-2)
Submitted: April 26, 2004 Decided: July 20, 2004
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph E. Wolfe, WOLFE, WILLIAMS & RUTHERFORD, Norton, Virginia,
for Appellant. James A. Winn, Regional Chief Counsel, Patricia M.
Smith, Deputy Regional Chief Counsel, Rafael Melendez, Assistant
Regional Counsel, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; John L. Brownlee,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Tony R. Hill appeals the district court’s order affirming
the Commissioner’s decision to deny Hill Social Security Disability
Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. Hill argues
that the administrative law judge (ALJ) did not give proper weight
to the opinion of Hill’s primary physician or a psychiatrist with
whom Hill met once. We affirm.
We must uphold the district court’s disability
determination if it is supported by substantial evidence. See 42
U.S.C. § 405(g) (2000); Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th
Cir. 1990). Contrary to Hill’s argument, the ALJ properly declined
to fully credit the medical assessment of Muhammad Javed, M.D. The
medical source opinion regulations indicate that the more
consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more
weight the Commissioner will give it. See 20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d) (2000). The bulk of the remaining
medical sources of record opined that, although Hill experienced
various limitations, he was still able to perform various
functions, including, inter alia, standing for several hours,
sitting for several hours, and lifting to a certain degree. Thus,
we find that the ALJ did not err by discounting Javed’s assessment.
Next, Hill argues that the ALJ erroneously substituted
his own medical opinion for that of David Forester, M.D., a
psychiatrist with whom Hill met once for ninety minutes. Again,

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
Hill’s argument is without merit. In reaching his conclusion, the
ALJ properly considered Dr. Forester’s testimony in the context of
the other medical evidence. Therefore, although Hill clearly
suffers from back and lung problems, as well as anxiety,
substantial evidence supports a finding that these deficiencies do
not significantly limit Hill’s ability to work a light to sedentary
unskilled job.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying
benefits. 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

-- 3 of 3 --