No. 11-1335
APRIL M. FISKE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever III,
District Judge. (5:09-cv-00564-D)
Submitted:
Decided:
January 6, 2012
William
Lee
Davis,
III,
Lumberton,
North
Carolina,
for
Appellant. Thomas Walker, United States Attorney, Robert Crowe,
Special Assistant United States Attorney, SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM:
April McCarty Fiske appeals the district courts order
affirming the Commissioner of Social Securitys denial of her
application for disability insurance benefits.
We must uphold
(2006);
Johnson
(per
v.
434
Barnhart,
curiam).
Substantial
42 U.S.C.
F.3d
evidence
650,
653
is
such
make
decision
credibility
is
conflicting
determinations
supported
evidence
by
in
evaluating
substantial
allows
reasonable
Id.
whether
evidence;
minds
to
[w]here
differ,
we
We affirm.
August
(ALJ).
2006
decision
of
the
administrative
law
judge
Fiske
argues
that
the
Commissioner
actually
or
The
Social
findings
Security
individuals
405(h)
who
after
were
(2006).
previous
and
a
decision
hearing
parties
to
Accordingly,
[disability]
of
shall
such
res
the
be
binding
hearing.
judicata
determination
Commissioner
or
42
applies
decision
has
decision,
20
upon
of
all
U.S.C.
when
become
20 C.F.R.
C.F.R.
404.987,
988
(2011),
but
this
Human Servs., 859 F.2d 319, 322 (4th Cir. 1988) (When deciding
whether
to
reopen
or
to
reconsider
his
own
administrative
into the ALJs decision and evidence concerning this period does
not constructively reopen the claim.
F.3d 518, 521 (4th Cir. 1995) (holding that Appeals Council did
not
explicitly
or
implicitly
reopen
case
and
stating
that
Because
subject
to
judicial
review,
res
judicata
bars
she
is
evidence.
not
She
disabled
contends
is
that
not
the
supported
ALJ
did
by
not
substantial
give
adequate
that
the
ALJ
failed
to
cite
or
refer
to
medical
the
meaning
of
423(d)(5)
(2006);
English
416.920(a)(4)
Commissioner
the
Social
v.
Security
Shalala,
Act.
10
F.3d
42
U.S.C.
1080,
1082
disability
claim.
(2011).
asks,
20
Pursuant
in
sequence,
C.F.R.
to
404.1520(a)(4),
this
whether
process,
the
the
claimant:
Id.
proof at steps one through four, but the burden shifts to the
Commissioner at step five.
146 n.5 (1987).
20 C.F.R.
404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4).
Although Fiske argues that the ALJ failed to afford
the opinion of her treating physician controlling weight, she
has
failed
to
conclusion. 2
appellants
identify
See
brief
Fed.
any
R.
contain
opinion
App.
P.
contrary
28(a)(9)
contentions
and
to
the
ALJs
(requiring
reasons
for
that
them,
met
listed
impairment
between
2000
and
2003,
the
See 20
considerable
relevant
time
weight
inasmuch
to
as
Dr.
Strahls
the
residual
opinion
within
functional
the
capacity
contends
that
the
ALJs
residual
functional
notes
Fiske is mistaken.
tracking
February
2006.
Fiskes
progress
Moreover,
the
from
ALJ
March
2003
considered
the
brief
fails
to
identify
the
evidence
the
ALJ
failed
to
supports
the
agency
decision,
and
we
affirm
the
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED