UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

MARION F. CARLIN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

No. 95-2392

SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF

SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken.

Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-92-1918-1-20AJ)

Argued: April 4, 1996

Decided: May 23, 1996

Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Mary J. Wiesen-Kosinski, Aiken, South Carolina, for

Appellant. Sharon M. Saffron, Office of the General Counsel,

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland,

for Appellee. ON BRIEF: J. Preston Strom, Jr., 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, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

We must decide whether substantial evidence supports the decision

of the Commissioner of Social Security that Marion F. Carlin's period

of disability began on October 1, 1989. Contending that his disability

began on September 23, 1988, Carlin assigns error to the Commissioner's (1) evaluation of his subjective complaints of pain and (2)

vocational assessment. Having reviewed the record and considered

Carlin's arguments, we affirm the district court's decision upholding

the Commissioner's disability determination.

I

Carlin applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental

security income on December 21, 1988, alleging disability since January 15, 1987, due to right shoulder pain and dizzy spells. His applications were denied initially and on reconsideration.

Carlin thereafter requested a hearing before an Administrative Law

Judge (ALJ). The ALJ vacated the denial of Carlin's applications and

remanded his case to the State Agency of South Carolina for a mental

assessment. The State Agency determined that Carlin was disabled

from a combination of mental and physical impairments beginning

October 1, 1989, the date that medical records first showed that Carlin

suffered from a condition that "would restrict[his] ability to concentrate and to understand, remember, and carry out detailed job instructions." Before that date, the State Agency explained, Carlin's physical

 2
condition "would not have prevented [him] from performing other

kinds of work available within the national economy."

Dissatisfied with the October 1, 1989, onset date established by the

State Agency, Carlin requested another hearing before an ALJ and, at

the hearing, amended his alleged onset date to September 23, 1988.

After holding a hearing on the matter, the ALJ rejected Carlin's

claim. Based on an October 4, 1989, psychological evaluation showing "depression and impairment of concentration to such a degree that

[Carlin] was unable to work in view of his additional physical impairments," the ALJ found that Carlin was currently disabled. While noting that before October 1, 1989, Carlin had a right rotator cuff tear,

restrictive lung disease, and mild depression that precluded him from

performing his past relevant heavy work as a construction worker, the

ALJ determined that those ailments did not prevent Carlin from performing medium work1 not requiring lifting the right arm above

shoulder level. From his evaluation of the medical evidence, Carlin's

subjective complaints of pain, and testimony presented at the hearing

by a vocational expert who took into account Carlin's "age, education, and work background,"2 the ALJ concluded that Carlin was not

disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act at any time

before October 1, 1989.

After the Appeals Council denied his request for review, Carlin

brought this action under § 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42

U.S.C. § 405(g), to obtain judicial review of the Commissioner's

"final decision." From the district court's judgment affirming the

Commissioner, Carlin noted this appeal.

II

On appeal, Carlin contends that the ALJ improperly evaluated his

subjective complaints of pain, refusing to credit Carlin's testimony on

_________________________________________________________________

1 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(c) provides that "[m]edium work involves lifting no more than 50 pounds at a time with frequent lifting or carrying

of objects weighing up to 25 pounds."

2 As of October 1, 1989, Carlin was 53 years old, had a seventh grade

education, and had worked in the relevant past on construction jobs as

a pipe fitter, millwright, and helper.

 3
the extent of his pain. While the ALJ did consider Carlin's pain, he

concluded that it did not preclude Carlin from performing a medium

level of work activity. To the extent that Carlin alleged more disabling pain, the ALJ found the evidence incredible. First, the ALJ

noted that Carlin's testimony at two hearings did not refer to any specific subjective limitations before October 1, 1989, and that Carlin did

not take any strong medication for relief of his pain before October

1, 1989. Second, the ALJ found that the medical evidence -- which

Carlin does not now dispute -- showed that despite his complaints,

Carlin had demonstrated a full range of motion of his right shoulder

with no impairment in the use of his hand or arm before October 1,

1989. Accordingly, we conclude that the ALJ properly considered

Carlin's pain and that his findings about the effect of Carlin's pain

before October 1, 1989, are supported by substantial evidence.

Carlin also contends that the ALJ conducted an improper vocational assessment by failing to take into account his disabling pain.

Carlin's vocational assessment argument, therefore, is dependent

upon -- and falls with -- his contention that the ALJ erroneously

evaluated his subjective complaints of pain. At the hearing, the ALJ

asked the vocational expert whether there were any jobs in the economy that Carlin should have been able to perform before October 1,

1989, taking into account "his age, education, and work background"

and assuming "that during that period of time he retained the residual

functional capacity to perform work at the medium exertional level as

defined in the regulation provided he was not required to lift weight

of that degree above shoulder level with his right hand and arm, and

. . . that during that period of time he did not have a mental impairment or combination of mental impairments which had imposed any

significant limitation on his ability to do work-related mental activities." The expert testified affirmatively, identifying such semi-skilled

jobs as welder and assembler and unskilled jobs as hand packager,

machine tender, and store laborer. We are satisfied that this testimony

provided substantial evidence to support the ALJ's decision that Carlin was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act

before October 1, 1989.

Accordingly, the district court's judgment affirming the Commissioner is

AFFIRMED.

 4