UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

PATSY L. WINKLER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

No. 96-2732

KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF

SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville.

H. Brent McKnight, Magistrate Judge.

(CA-95-27-MCK)

Argued: April 8, 1998

Decided: May 29, 1998

Before WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge, PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge,

and G. ROSS ANDERSON, JR., United States District Judge

for the District of South Carolina, sitting by designation.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

COUNSEL: Diane S. Griffin, LAW OFFICE OF DIANE S. GRIFFIN, P.C., Boone, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clifford Carson

Marshall, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Mark T. Calloway, United States

Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Patsy Winkler (Winkler) appeals from the magistrate judge's order.1

The magistrate affirmed the Commissioner's decision to deny Supplemental Security Income (SSI) to Ms. Winkler. Because substantial

evidence supports the Commissioner's decision, we affirm.

I.

Ms. Winkler filed an SSI application on January 13, 1993 due to

her alleged disability.2 The Commissioner denied her application for

disability. Her reconsideration of disability was also denied. The hearing was conducted on December 14, 1993.

The ALJ, in a decision dated August 17, 1994, denied the claim.

The Appeals Council denied the request for review of the decision by

the ALJ and the decision became final. Having exhausted her administrative remedies, Ms. Winkler sought judicial review of the adverse

decision in federal court pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§§ 405 and 1383(c)(3).

Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The United States

Magistrate granted the Commissioner's motion and denied Ms. Winkler's motion. Ms. Winkler is before us on appeal of the decision of

the magistrate.

II.

We must uphold the Commissioner's decision in denying disability

_________________________________________________________________

1 The parties agreed to have a federal magistrate conduct the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73.

2 Previously, Ms. Winkler had filed SSI applications in 1989, 1990 and

1991. These applications were all denied and were not appealed past the

reconsideration stage.

 2
so long as the decision is supported by substantial evidence and in

reaching the ultimate conclusions, the correct law was applied. 42

U.S.C. § 405(g) (West Supp. 1996); Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453,

1456 (4th Cir. 1990). Substantial evidence has been defined by our

Supreme Court as "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might

accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson v. Perales,

402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). Substantial evidence "consists of more than

a mere scintilla of evidence but may be somewhat less than a preponderance. If there is evidence to justify a refusal to direct a verdict

were the case before a jury, then there is `substantial evidence.'"

Hays, 907 F.2d at 1456 (quoting Laws v. Celebrezze, 368 F.2d 640,

642 (4th Cir. 1966)). We will not reweigh the evidence or substitute

our judgment for that of the Commissioner. Id. 

III.

The ALJ concluded that Ms. Winkler suffered from a severe cardiovascular impairment which precluded her from returning to her

previous relevant work as a housekeeper. However, her impairments

or a combination of her impairments did not equal a listed impairment. Based on the medical evidence, the ALJ concluded that Ms.

Winkler retained the capacity to perform a full range of work at a

light level. Ms. Winkler contends that substantial evidence did not

support the findings by the ALJ.

Ms. Winkler asserts that the ALJ substituted his own medical

determination for that of the experts in either the medical or vocational fields. Based on the record before us, there is substantial evidence to uphold the ALJ's decision. The ALJ may not form his own

independent opinion on medical issues, however, he can choose to

give one experts opinion more weight than another. See McGee v.

Bowen, 647 F.Supp. 1238 (N.D. Ill. 1986). We hold that the ALJ

properly considered the applicable medical evidence. Further, we find

that substantial evidence supports the medical conclusions drawn

therefrom.

Next, Ms. Winkler contends that the ALJ did not conduct a proper

analysis of her pain. Also, she contends the ALJ used improper testimony in discrediting her when he made his decision about pain.

 3
The ALJ has the duty to evaluate pain and its effect in determining

one's ability to function. Foster v. Heckler, 780 F.2d 1125 (4th Cir.

1986). We find that the ALJ used the proper law and standards, under

Foster, when he conducted his analysis regarding assessment of pain

of Ms. Winkler. Id. The ALJ found evidence contrary to Ms. Winkler's assertions. Evidence of her daily activities, her active role in

seeking new employment and her chest pains being controlled with

calcium channel blockers and nitroglycerin all support the ALJ's

decision in his analysis of pain. Further, this evidence was contrary

to Ms. Winkler's assertion of disability. We will not second guess the

ALJ's credibility determinations. Hays, 907 F.2d at 1456. Based on

the record, we find that the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial

evidence.

Lastly, Ms. Winkler argues that the ALJ misapplied the medicalvocational guidelines in determining her disability. Ms. Winkler's

pain did not rise to a level that significantly limited her ability to perform light level work. This conclusion was supported by substantial

evidence. Accordingly, the ALJ properly applied the guidelines.

IV.

Because substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision, we

affirm the magistrate judge's order.

AFFIRMED

 4