UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

VIRGINIA R. CRAFT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

No. 97-2551

KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF

SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap.

James P. Jones, District Judge.

(CA-96-239-B)

Submitted: September 15, 1998

Decided: October 6, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ,

Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Joseph E. Wolfe, WOLFE & FARMER, Norton, Virginia, for Appellant. James A. Winn, Chief Counsel, Patricia M. Smith, Deputy Chief

Counsel, Margaret J. Krecke, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of

the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Virginia R. Craft appeals the district court's order affirming the

Commissioner of Social Security's denial of Craft's claim for disability insurance benefits. The Commissioner denied Craft benefits after

concluding that, although Craft could not return to her past relevant

work, she had the residual functional capacity to engage in sedentary

work. On appeal, Craft asserts that the Commissioner erred in discounting portions of Dr. Worth's mental assessment and in failing to

develop the record concerning Craft's mental disability.

Craft filed her application for social security benefits on February

8, 1994, alleging that she had been disabled since August 3, 1993, due

to nervousness and pain in her back, hips, and legs. Craft's application was denied initially and on reconsideration. An administrative

law judge ("ALJ") conducted a de novo review, including a hearing

on April 12, 1995, at which Craft was represented by counsel.

Craft testified at the hearing that she has pain and a burning sensation in her back which radiates down her legs. She also has pain and

soreness in her knees, and she occasionally suffers from migraines.

She also testified that she is nervous, feels "useless," and wants to be

left alone. Her activities include household chores, cooking, watching

television, going to church, shopping, short-distance driving, and

socializing with her children.

In 1992, Craft was treated by Dr. Kotay for low back pain. Examination revealed muscle spasm of the lumbar spine and moderate

osteoporosis. Dr. Kotay treated Craft's back pain with calcium supplementation and estrogen therapy.

From 1993 to 1995, Dr. Marshall treated Craft for chronic low

back, osteoarthritis and osteoporosis. Tests revealed lumbar spondylo-

 2
sis, mild polyphagia, and osteoporosis. Dr. Marshall prescribed Toradol and Flexiril and advised Craft to implement an exercise program.

He determined that Craft could do sedentary to light work with the

following restrictions: occasionally lifting or carrying a maximum of

fifteen pounds; standing, walking, or sitting for a total of only four to

six hours (fifty minutes without interruption); and no stooping, bending, or subjecting herself to vibration.

Treating Craft between 1993 and 1995, Dr. Bell diagnosed crepitance in both knees, low back strain, osteoarthritis and osteoporosis.

He prescribed various pain killers and muscle relaxants. Dr. Bell also

treated Craft during the latter half of 1994 for right hand, knee, and

back pain. He advised continued use of Toradol. Dr. Bell referred

Craft to Dr. Morris for further treatment of osteoporosis. Dr. Morris

diagnosed osteopenia and recommended calcium and estrogen therapy. Dr. Morris reported that Craft suffered from a partial disability

and should be restricted from lifting and bending.

Dr. Worth submitted a report dated December 21, 1994. Craft

reported problems with depression, irritability, sleep disturbance, and

decreased energy. Based on Craft's subjective complaints, Dr. Worth

diagnosed depression and opined that counseling and antidepressant

medication could ameliorate Craft's physical pain. While he determined that Craft was not capable of working because of physical pain,

he could not quantify the extent to which psychological factors exacerbated Craft's perception of pain. Dr. Worth also completed a form

assessing Craft's ability to do work-related activities from a mental

standpoint. He determined that Craft retained a seriously limited, but

not precluded, ability to deal with work stresses; maintain attention;

function independently; understand, remember, and carry out complex job instructions; and behave in an emotionally stable manner. In

addition, Dr. Worth found Craft retained a good ability to follow

work rules, use judgment, interact with supervisors, follow detailed

work instructions, and maintain personal appearance, and an unlimited ability to follow simple job instructions. He also found Craft possessed a limited but satisfactory ability to deal with the public, use

judgment, and relate predictably in social situations. Finally, Dr.

Worth found that Craft retained no useful ability to demonstrate reliability due to her depression and chronic pain.

 3
Dr. Bachman submitted a report dated January 1994, diagnosing

Craft with severe osteoporosis and chondromalacia of the patella. He

noted that Craft did not appear to be in pain and that she had good

range of motion in her back. He also completed a form assessing

Craft's work ability from a physical standpoint and determined that

Craft could stand or walk for a total of four hours (one hour without

interruption) and that Craft should not climb, stoop, crouch, kneel,

crawl, push, pull, work around heights, or move machinery.

The ALJ determined that Craft's medical evidence established that

she suffered from depression, chronic back pain, mild polyphagia,

osteoporosis, and crepitance in both knees. Based partially on the testimony of a vocational expert, the ALJ further found that Craft could

perform unskilled, sedentary work which accommodated her physical

and mental limitations. In so finding, the ALJ discounted Dr. Worth's

functional assessment and his determination that Craft was disabled

by physical pain, based on the inconsistencies in Dr. Worth's report

and the fact that Craft had not sought medical treatment for her

"nerves." The Appeals Council declined to review the ALJ's decision,

rendering it the final decision of the Commissioner. Craft then filed

a civil action in district court. The district court granted the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment, and Craft now appeals.

Craft first contends that the ALJ erroneously discounted portions

of Dr. Worth's opinion. However, the ALJ must decide what weight

to assign to a non-treating physician's opinion, based on several listed

factors (including (i) the existence, nature, and extent of any treatment or examining relationship; (ii) the extent to which the opinion

is supported by medical evidence and is consistent with the record as

a whole; and (iii) whether the opinion is rendered in an area of specialty). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) (1996). An ALJ's determination

as to the weight to be assigned to a medical opinion will generally not

be disturbed absent some indication that the ALJ has dredged up "specious inconsistencies," Scivally v. Sullivan , 966 F.2d 1070, 1077 (7th

Cir. 1992), or has not given good reason for the weight afforded a

particular opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d).

The ALJ agreed with Dr. Worth that Craft suffered from depression and had moderate difficulties in maintaining social functioning.

The ALJ disagreed, however, as to the degree to which Craft is

 4
restricted. The determination of a claimant's residual functional

capacity and the application of vocational factors are reserved to the

ALJ, who is not bound by medical opinion on these subjects. See 20

C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(2) (1996).

Contradicting Dr. Worth's conclusions that Craft was unable to

demonstrate reliability, the record shows that, on certain days, Craft

cooks, performs some housework, washes dishes, and grocery shops

with her husband. She drives for short distances. She watches television, works crafts, attends church, and visits with her family. Further,

Dr. Worth's conclusion that Craft was debilitated by pain was based

only on Craft's complaints and not on her depression, which he could

not quantify. In addition, Dr. Worth's conclusions were inconsistent

with the medical opinions of Dr. Marshall and Dr. Bachman, who

treated Craft for back pain and concluded, nonetheless, that Craft

retained the ability to work. Moreover, there was no evidence to support Dr. Worth's opinion that Craft had no useful ability to demonstrate reliability. He did not perform any clinical tests, he does not

indicate that Craft had difficulty focusing or concentrating during his

examination, and his conclusions are not consistent with Craft's ability to hold long-term jobs in the past. Finally, no other doctor ever

reported that Craft's behavior was emotionally unstable. In sum,

Craft's daily regimen and an adequate weighing of the medical evidence of record provides the requisite substantial evidence to support

the ALJ's conclusions that, despite her mental and physical impairments, Craft retains the requisite functional capacity to perform sedentary work. See Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)

(standard of review).

Craft also contends that the ALJ failed to develop a full and fair

record. She asserts that the ALJ should have arranged for further psychological testing after rejecting portions of Dr. Worth's opinion. The

pertinent inquiry is "whether the record contained sufficient medical

evidence for the ALJ to make an informed decision as to [Craft's]

alleged mental impairment," without the need for a second consultative psychological examination. Matthews v. Bowen, 879 F.2d 422,

424 (8th Cir. 1989); see also Turner v. Califano , 563 F.2d 669, 671

(5th Cir. 1977) (examination only required when"necessary" to

ALJ's decision).

 5
Based on the record before us, we conclude that the ALJ had sufficient medical evidence before him to make an informed decision

about Craft's impairments. In fact, the ALJ did develop the record by

obtaining consultative evaluations from Dr. Bachman and Dr. Worth,

and by arranging for the testimony of a vocational expert. While the

ALJ must make a reasonable inquiry into a claim of disability, he has

no duty to "go to inordinate lengths to develop a claimant's case."

Thomas v. Califano, 556 F.2d 616, 618 (1st Cir. 1977). The ALJ's

considerable efforts here to develop the medical evidence on behalf

on this represented claimant were more than adequate. Furthermore,

even on appeal, Craft makes no showing that any further evidence

would have aided her application. Therefore, we find that the ALJ did

not abuse his discretion in failing to obtain a second consultative psychological examination of Craft. See Jones v. Bowen, 829 F.2d 524,

526 (5th Cir. 1987) (standard of review).

We, therefore, affirm. 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

 6