UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ROSA BRUNSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

No. 96-1266

SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF

SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston.

Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge.

(CA-93-2970-2-22AJ)

Argued: May 9, 1997

Decided: July 10, 1997

Before MURNAGHAN and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and

FABER, United States District Judge for the Southern District of

West Virginia, sitting by designation.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Anne Middleton Bell, BRYAN, BAHNMULLER,

GOLDMAN & MCELVEEN, L.L.P., Sumter, South Carolina, for

Appellant. Renata Deann Turner, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office

of General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Terrell T. Horne,
BRYAN, BAHNMULLER, GOLDMAN & MCELVEEN, L.L.P.,

Sumter, South Carolina, for Appellant. Frank W. Hunger, Assistant

Attorney General, Margaret B. Seymour, United States Attorney,

Mary Ann Sloan, Acting Chief Counsel, Region IV, Mack A. Davis,

Acting Deputy Chief Counsel, Haila Naomi Kleinman, Supervisory

Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of General Counsel, SOCIAL

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Rosa Brunson applied to the Social Security Administration for

supplemental security income in May 1991 and disability benefits in

July 1991, alleging a disability beginning May 1, 1991, due to "knee

trouble and hip joint." After a hearing before the Administrative Law

Judge (ALJ), the ALJ determined that while Brunson had severe

impairments, they would not preclude her from performing her prior

relevant work as a cashier at a movie theater, a job that she had last

held in 1979. The appeals council affirmed this decision as did the

district court. On appeal Brunson claims that the ALJ did not properly

weigh her testimony about pain and improperly overlooked the treating physician's conclusion that "the patient is probably totally disabled at this time because of her right hip and back pain." She also

challenges the evidence to support a finding that her movie cashier

work constituted substantial gainful employment, although she did

not raise this issue below. Because the evidence in the record on this

issue is ambiguous, we will not decide it.

Brunson's impairments originated in 1972 when she was severely

injured in a hurricane. She sustained a compound fracture of her right

leg, complicated by osteomyelitis, which eventually required that her

leg be fused at the knee. Her leg is now fixed in an outstretched posi-

 2
tion with about a ten degree flexion at the knee, and Brunson has also

developed degenerative hip disease, causing her to experience pain,

particularly when she walks or stands too long. Brunson has a college

education and a history of semi-skilled to skilled employment as a

bank teller, substitute teacher, mental retardation specialist, and cashier in a movie theater. While she claims that her jobs as teacher, bank

teller, and mental retardation specialist involve light exertion with lifting up to 20 pounds, she described her job as a cashier as requiring

sedentary exertion. Nevertheless, she claims that she is unable to

work at any of these jobs due to her pain in her hip and leg.

In answers to interrogatories, which were entered into the record of

the hearing before the ALJ, Brunson's treating physician stated that

Brunson takes Feldene for her pain but indicated that her ability to

concentrate would be unaffected by her condition or medication. The

physician also stated that Brunson's condition required her to change

positions, including standing, sitting or lying down, every 45 to 60

minutes. He concluded that Brunson's condition precludes her from

using the lower right extremity in the operation of leg controls or foot

pedals and from stooping, kneeling, climbing stairs, or prolonged

walking. He felt that Brunson's condition did require her to use a cane

but would not prevent her from using her arms and hands to reach at

the waist level while seated, reaching overhead with her arms or

hands, lifting or carrying objects weighing less than five pounds, or

pushing or pulling with the hands and arms while seated.

The Administrative Law Judge considered Brunson's claim of pain

and other subjective symptoms and her treating physician's summary

conclusion that she was disabled. But based on the other testimony

given, the ALJ concluded that the claimant could perform work at her

last employment as a movie cashier. She noted that Brunson lives

with two small children aged 9 and 10 and that she fixes meals for

herself and for them, washes dishes, goes grocery shopping, helps the

children with their homework, goes to church, and performs household chores.

It is well-established that we must uphold the Commissioner's

decision if it is supported by substantial evidence and is not contrary

to law. While we might question the extent to which pain would interfere with Brunson's work, we must recognize that the ALJ, who

 3
found the facts in this case, had the ability to observe the witnesses

and draw conclusions based on the evidence. We cannot say that the

findings are not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we

affirm the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED

 4