UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

GARY W. YOHO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 98-1684

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling.

Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge.

(CA-97-109-5)

Submitted: October 30, 1998

Decided: December 31, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL,

Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Karl E. Osterhout, ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, Pittsburgh,

Pennsylvania, for Appellant. James A. Winn, Chief Counsel, Region

III, Patricia M. Smith, Deputy Chief Counsel, Adam Trevor Ackerman, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of the General Counsel,

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; William D. Wilmoth, United States Attorney, Helen Cambell Altmeyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia,

for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Gary Yoho appeals the district court's order adopting the report

and recommendation of a magistrate judge, granting summary judgment to the Commissioner, denying Yoho's motion for summary

judgment, and affirming the Commissioner's decision denying his

application for disability insurance benefits. Yoho, who alleges he is

disabled due to severe depression, contends the administrative law

judge ("ALJ") did not give appropriate weight to the medical evidence and did not ask complete hypothetical questions. Finding no

reversible error, we affirm.

Yoho was born in September 1951 and has a high school equivalent education. His past relevant work experience includes security

guard, carpenter, plumber, and estimator. In August 1992, he suffered

a sharp pain in his upper back while moving a heavy gate during his

employment as a security guard. He suffered some disc degeneration,

but no herniation. Yoho did not return to work and has not engaged

in substantial gainful employment since that time. He alleged that he

began to suffer severe depression due to his physical impairments.

Dr. Bromley, a psychiatrist, examined Yoho in August and September 1994. Bromley concluded at the end of the August examination that Yoho was 100% temporarily disabled due to his depression.

Bromley observed that Yoho carried an angry demeanor and was irritable due to a belief that he was mistreated and victimized by prior

employers and the workers' compensation system. According to

Bromley, Yoho's depression was caused by his continued unemployment and his chronic pain.

Bromley also observed that Yoho's thoughts are "logical and goal

directed, there is no [evidence] of a thought disorder, likewise there's

no evidence of delusionality, referential thinking or paranoia." Brom-

 2
ley further observed that Yoho's intelligence is"grossly average . . . .

His attention and concentration are adequate and his memory for short

term registery and short term recall is within normal limits. . . . His

insight is fair and his [judgment] is preserved."

Dr. Semidei, a psychiatrist, examined Yoho on one occasion and

concluded that he suffered from "Major Depression - moderate."

Semidei declined to offer an opinion as to the extent of Yoho's incapacity.

At the request of the ALJ, Frank Eibl, M.A., of Behavioral Associates, P.C., examined Yoho on one occasion. Eibl rated Yoho's ability to deal with the public and work stresses and to demonstrate

reliability as "poor or none." He noted that Yoho's depression was

due in part to the pain Yoho was experiencing. Like Semidei, he

found that Yoho suffered from moderate major depression.

In his objective findings, Eibl concluded that Yoho had notable

levels of depression and despair, social withdrawal and somewhat

impaired long and short term memory. In his narrative, Eibl stated

that Yoho was alert and spontaneous, maintained eye contact, displayed a positive attitude, interacted appropriately, and manifested

adequate insight. Eibl also stated that Yoho demonstrated a sad

demeanor with depressed levels of self-confidence and self-esteem.

He also became easily frustrated if a task became too difficult.

The ALJ found that Yoho had not engaged in any substantial activity since August 1992, did not have an impairment or combination of

impairments listed under 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, but was

unable to perform his last relevant work. The ALJ also found that

Yoho had the residual functional capacity to perform light work, due

to his physical limitations, but not work that could not accommodate

slight limitations in social interaction, work pace, or stress tolerance.

The ALJ found Yoho did not suffer from disabling pain and noted

it was reported that Yoho exaggerated symptoms of pain. The ALJ

also noted that Yoho had long gaps in his work history and opined

that, given he was receiving workers' compensation benefits, he

lacked motivation to be employed.

 3
The ALJ rejected the medical opinions describing significant mental health limitations because they were inconsistent with the underlying medical evidence. The ALJ noted that Bromley's and Eibl's

opinions were "disproportionate with [their] clinical findings." The

ALJ found that Yoho's depression went untreated, was not attended

by a marked disturbance in sleep or appetite, and did not manifest suicidal or homicidal tendencies. In addition, the ALJ observed that

Yoho maintained personal grooming and hygiene. Based upon a

series of hypotheticals posed to a vocational expert ("VE"), the ALJ

concluded that there are a significant number of jobs Yoho could perform with his physical and mental limitations including alarm monitor, information clerk, and production inspector. The Appeals Council

denied Yoho's request for review.

We review the Secretary's final decision to determine whether it is

supported by substantial evidence and whether the correct law was

applied. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g) (West Supp. 1998); Hays v.

Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990). Substantial evidence

means "`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)). Yoho contends that the ALJ did not give appropriate weight to the medical opinion regarding his depression. Yoho also

contends that the ALJ's findings were not based on accurate hypotheticals.*

A physician's opinion may be accorded less weight if it is not supported by clinical evidence or if it is internally inconsistent. See Craig

v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 590 (4th Cir. 1996); 20 C.F.R.

§§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927 (1996). There is substantial evidence to

reject Bromley's and Eibl's opinions on the basis that their conclusions are not supported by their own findings. Bromley's own observations of Yoho do not demonstrate that the depression was disabling.

He observed that Yoho's thoughts were in order, that his attention and

concentration were adequate, and that he had fair insight and judgment. Likewise, Eibl observed that Yoho had a positive attitude and

that he was alert and cooperative.

_________________________________________________________________

*Yoho limits his appeal solely to issues concerning his depression. He

does not challenge the ALJ's findings regarding any physical disabilities.

 4
Yoho also contends that the ALJ was obligated to include her

stated limitations as recorded in the Psychiatric Review Technique

Form ("PRTF") in her hypotheticals to the VE. At step three of the

sequential five-step analysis found at 20 C.F.R.§ 416.920 (1996), the

ALJ is required to complete the PRTF in order to assess a claimant's

mental impairment in categories identified as the"paragraph B"

criteria of § 12.00 of the Listing of Impairments. The ALJ indicated

that Yoho "often" had deficiencies of concentration, persistence or

pace, resulting in failure to complete tasks in a timely manner. At the

hearing, the ALJ's hypotheticals referred to Yoho's deficiencies as

slight.

The ALJ must propound hypothetical questions to the expert that

are based upon a consideration of all relevant evidence of record on

the claimant's impairment and fairly set out the claimant's impairments. See English v. Shalala, 10 F.3d 1080, 1085 (4th Cir. 1993);

Walker v. Bowen, 889 F.2d 47, 50 (4th Cir. 1989). There is no obligation, however, to transfer the findings on the PRTF verbatim to the

hypothetical questions. The ALJ found Yoho slightly limited in his

ability to deal with others in a work setting, to cope with stresses, and

to maintain a consistent pace at work. This finding is supported by the

evidence and is not contradictory to the ALJ's notation on the PRTF.

Thus, we find that the ALJ's hypotheticals were supported by the evidence and fairly set out Yoho's impairments.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the district court's order. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the material before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 5