UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

SOPHIA CHRISTINE HALL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

No. 98-2558

KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF

SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon.

James P. Jones, District Judge.

(CA-97-122)

Submitted: July 30, 1999

Decided: August 16, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL,

Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Martin Wegbreit, CLIENT CENTERED LEGAL SERVICES OF

SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA, INC., Castlewood, Virginia, for Appellant. James A. Winn, Chief Counsel, Patricia M. Smith, Deputy Chief

Counsel, Rafael Melendez, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of the

General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Robert

P. Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, John F. Cochran, Assistant

United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Sophia Christine Hall appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment to the Social Security Administration and

denying her motion to remand her case to the Administrative Law

Judge (ALJ). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm.

Sophia Christine Hall, who was fifty-one years old at the time of

the ALJ's decision, sought disability benefits on the basis of lower

back pain, wrist pain, and "nervousness." Hall suffered from degenerative joint disease of her fifth lumbar disc and her first sacroiliac disc.

During administrative processing of her claims, she broke the radius

bone of her wrist on her left, non-dominant hand and required surgery. Nearly a year and a half following the injury, her treating physician opined that she had arthritis as a result of the injury, that she had

a significant impairment in her wrist that would not improve, that she

would not be able to frequently lift objects over ten pounds, and that

excessive lifting stresses on her wrist could cause her condition to

deteriorate. Psychiatric testing did not reveal any abnormal mental

conditions.

The ALJ denied her claim after two hearings in September 1995

and March 1996. The ALJ found that: (1) she had a past relevant

work history of light to medium unskilled work; (2) she had no psychiatric mental impairment and was of low average intelligence; (3)

she had severe physical impairments within the meaning of Social

Security regulations because she had an impairment of more than

minimal severity of her wrist; (4) these impairments singly or in combination with each other did not meet the criteria listed in 20 C.F.R.

Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 (1999); and (5) a significant number of jobs

existed in the national economy that Hall could perform.

 2
The Appeals Council declined Hall's request for review of the

ALJ's decision, and thus, the ALJ's decision became the final decision of the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R.§ 404.981 (1999). Hall then

filed the present action seeking review of the denial of benefits. The

district court granted summary judgment to the Commissioner. The

district court also denied Hall's motion to remand her case based on

Hall's two epidural steroid treatments for back pain following the

ALJ's decision.

Hall timely filed her appeal. She claimed that the ALJ did not properly evaluate her claims of pain and that evidence of the two subsequent treatments for her back pain might have altered the ALJ's

decision.

We have reviewed the record, briefs, and pertinent case law in this

matter. Our review persuades us that the district court correctly found

that the Commissioner's decision denying benefits was based on substantial evidence notwithstanding Hall's subjective complaints of

pain. We also find that the district court correctly denied Hall's

motion to remand her case to the ALJ. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. See Hall v. Apfel, No. CA 97-122-A

(W.D. Va. Sept. 22, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 3