USCA4 Appeal: 22-1476 Doc: 20 Filed: 12/20/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1476

EDNA GIGON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (1:20-cv-00133-FDW)

Submitted: September 26, 2023 Decided: December 20, 2023

Before THACKER and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Charlotte W. Hall, ARROWOOD AND HALL, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Dena J. King, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina; David N. Mervis, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1476 Doc: 20 Filed: 12/20/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Edna Gigon appeals the district court’s order upholding the Administrative Law

Judge’s (ALJ) denial of Gigon’s application for disability insurance benefits. “In social

security proceedings, a court of appeals applies the same standard of review as does the

district court. That is, a reviewing court must uphold the determination when an ALJ has

applied correct legal standards and the ALJ’s factual findings are supported by substantial

evidence.” Brown v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin.,

(4th Cir. 2017) (citation

and internal quotation marks omitted). “Substantial evidence is that which a reasonable

mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It consists of more than a mere

scintilla of evidence but may be less than a preponderance.” Pearson v. Colvin,

(4th Cir. 2015) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “In reviewing for

substantial evidence, we do not undertake to reweigh conflicting evidence, make credibility

determinations, or substitute our judgment for that of the ALJ. Where conflicting evidence

allows reasonable minds to differ as to whether a claimant is disabled, the responsibility

for that decision falls on the ALJ.” Hancock v. Astrue,

(4th Cir. 2012)

(brackets, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted).

We have reviewed the record and perceive no reversible error. The ALJ applied the

correct legal standards in evaluating Gigon’s claim for benefits, and the ALJ’s factual

findings are supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ’s decision not to include

additional limitations in Gigon’s residual functional capacity is supported by substantial

evidence, and his basis for declining to do so is reasonably apparent from the decision. The

ALJ’s assessment of Gigon’s subjective complaints is also supported by substantial

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1476 Doc: 20 Filed: 12/20/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment upholding the denial of

benefits. Gigon v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:20-cv-00133-FDW (W.D.N.C. Mar. 29,

2022). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3