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)
99-1907•Jerry L. Downey v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security
99-1907Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitFeb 4, 2000
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-1907
JERRY L. DOWNEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District Judge.
(CA-98-61)
Submitted: December 22, 1999 Decided: February 4, 2000
Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John E. Lane, III, Lynch Station, Virginia, for Appellant. James
A. Winn, Regional Chief Counsel, Allyson Jozwik, Assistant Regional
Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINIS-
TRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United
States Attorney, Thomas L. Eckert, Assistant United States Attor-
ney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Jerry L. Downey appeals the district court’s order affirming
the Commissioner’s decision that Downey’s disability insurance
benefits are subject to offset under 42 U.S.C.A. § 424a (West Supp.
1999). We have reviewed the briefs and the administrative record,
and find that substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s de-
cision. Downey’s constitutional and equitable arguments are with-
out merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
court, adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation. See Downey
v. Apfel, No. CA-98-61 (W.D. Va. June 30, 1999). We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-
ly 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.