UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

KATHRYN J. OLDHAM,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

No. 95-2985

SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF

SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.

Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge.

(CA-94-649-CV-2)

Submitted: February 13, 1997

Decided: February 27, 1997

Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and

BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Tomi W. Bryan, Lisa W. Bullard, TOMI BRYAN & ASSOCIATES,

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Walter C. Holton, Jr.,

United States Attorney, Gill P. Beck, Assistant United States Attorney, Arthur J. Fried, General Counsel, Randolph W. Gaines, Acting

Principal Deputy General Counsel, A. George Lowe, Acting Associate General Counsel, Richard Fox, Office of the General Counsel,
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland,

for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Kathryn Oldham 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 Oldham's application for disability insurance benefits and

Supplemental Security Income. The Commissioner's decision denying benefits is based upon the finding that Oldham could perform her

past relevant work, and thus was not disabled under 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.

Oldham filed her application for social security disability benefits

claiming disability since August 14, 1992, from the loss of her right

kidney, and mental disability from longstanding depression and a personality disorder. A hearing was held before an administrative law

judge (ALJ) on March 16, 1993. After a thorough review of the hearing testimony by Oldham and her witness, a vocational expert called

by the ALJ, and the relevant medical evidence, the ALJ determined

that Oldham could perform her past relevant work, and that Oldham's

impairments were not disabling for purposes of the Social Security

Act.

Oldham's basic claim on appeal is that the ALJ's decision is not

supported by substantial evidence. She specifically claims that her

condition deteriorated significantly after she last worked in 1990. In

addition, Oldham claims that the ALJ: (1) should have found her dis-

 2
abled pursuant to the provisions of Social Security Ruling (SSR) 85-

15; (2) made unsupported findings in a Psychiatric Review Technique

Form; (3) improperly relied on Cauthen v. Finch , 426 F.2d 891 (4th

Cir. 1970); and (4) failed to determine the credibility of witness Hank

Boschen.

The language of 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g) (West Supp. 1996), requires

that this Court uphold the Commissioner's decision that a claimant is

not disabled so long as the correct law was applied and the decision

is supported by substantial evidence. Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453,

1456 (4th Cir. 1990). The Supreme Court has defined substantial evidence 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) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305

U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). 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

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

640, 642 (4th Cir. 1966)). This Court will not reweigh the evidence

or substitute its judgment for that of the ALJ. Hays, 907 F.2d at 1456.

After considering Oldham's claims on appeal and a review of the

record, we find that the ALJ properly evaluated the evidence in this

case, including Oldham's subjective complaints, and made appropriate credibility and factual findings in accordance with relevant regulatory criteria and Fourth Circuit case law. In reaching this conclusion,

we specifically find that the ALJ properly followed the provisions of

SSR 85-15, that his findings in the Psychiatric Review Technique

Form at issue were supported by substantial evidence, that his reliance on Cauthen v. Finch was proper, and that he properly considered all relevant evidence, including the testimony of witness Hank

Boschen.

While there was some evidence supporting Oldham's claim of disability, because the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards,

and the decision is supported by substantial evidence, we affirm the

district court's order upholding the Commissioner's denial of Oldham's application for social security disability benefits. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-

 3
quately presented in the materials before the Court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 4