117 F.3d 1414 (4th Cir. 1997), 96-1154, Mack v. Chater

Docket Nº:96-1154.
Citation:117 F.3d 1414
Party Name:Mamie L. MACK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
Case Date:July 17, 1997
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Page 1414

117 F.3d 1414 (4th Cir. 1997)

Mamie L. MACK, Plaintiff-Appellant,


Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 96-1154.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

July 17, 1997

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA4 Rule 36 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Submitted March 25, 1997.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston, (CA-94-1659-2-18AJ); David C. Norton, District Judge.

Mary J. Wiesen-Kosinski, Aiken, South Carolina, for Appellant. Margaret B. Seymour, United States Attorney, John B. Grimball, Assistant United States Attorney, Arthur J. Fried, General Counsel, Randolph W. Gaines, Acting Principal Deputy General Counsel, A. George Lowe, Acting Associate General Counsel, Litigation Division, Frieda Schlemeyer Colfelt, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.



Mamie Mack appeals the decision of the district court adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, granting summary judgment to the Commissioner of Social Security, and upholding the denial of Mack's application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The Commissioner's decision to deny benefits was based upon the finding that Mack had the residual functional capacity to perform work-related activities, except for work involving understanding and carrying out detailed or complex instructions, and thus was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. Because we find that the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence, and that the correct law was applied, we affirm. [*]

Mack filed her application for social security disability benefits claiming disability since April 2, 1992, as the result of back problems and high blood pressure. A hearing was held before an administrative law judge (ALJ) on June 11, 1993. After a thorough review of the hearing testimony by Mack and her daughter, and the relevant medical evidence, the ALJ determined that, although Mack suffers from mild mental retardation, she was not disabled because, at that time, Mack's medical condition did...

To continue reading