1 Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that

have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on

the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless

expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."

Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion

should not be published.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

for the Fifth Circuit

_____________________________________

No. 95-30035

Summary Calendar

_____________________________________

CAROL BELLOW,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

SHIRLEY S. CHATER, 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

(93 CV 2223)

______________________________________________________

August 16, 1995

Before DUHÉ, WIENER, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Carol Bellow appeals the district court's grant of summary

judgment in favor of Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner of Social

Security. Bellow's appeal arises from the denial of her

application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. We

affirm.

BACKGROUND
2

Bellow is 46 years old, has a ninth grade education, and has

no prior work experience. According to the Administrative Law

Judge (ALJ), Bellows suffers from a severe dysthymic disorder that

does not amount to an affective disorder as listed in 20 C.F.R. pt.

404, subpt. P, app. 1, § 12.04 (1994). The ALJ found that Bellow

had nonexertional limitations of (1) understanding, remembering,

and carrying out complex or detailed job instructions and (2)

functioning independently. On the psychiatric review form attached

to his opinion, the ALJ noted that Bellow had three symptoms

characteristic of depressive syndrome: sleep disturbance,

decreased energy, and difficulty concentrating or thinking. The

three symptoms cause Bellows to have moderate restrictions on daily

living activities and moderate difficulties in maintaining social

functioning. 

Because Bellow suffered from nonexertional limitations only,

the ALJ required the testimony of a vocational expert. See 20

C.F.R. § 416.969a(c). At a supplemental hearing, the ALJ asked

several hypothetical questions concerning a person of Bellow's age,

education, and employment experience, to Jeff Peterson, a

vocational expert. First, the ALJ asked Peterson to assume

nonexertional limitations that would preclude jobs requiring

understanding, remembering, or executing involved job instructions,

or requiring one to function independently. Peterson listed a

number of nonaffected jobs including counter clerk, kitchen help,

cashier, and laundry service worker. Peterson stated that

approximately 7500 such jobs existed within Calcasieu, Cameron, and
2 Our unpublished decision in Monroe v. Shalala, No. 94-41236 (May

5, 1995), is not to the contrary. The ALJ did not recognize the

claimant's pain and swelling so the ALJ's failure to include this

3

Jeff Davis Parishes. Second, the ALJ asked Peterson what jobs

would exist if the person's residual functional capacity was

further reduced by a moderate reduction in the ability to maintain

attention or concentration. Peterson responded that the additional

limitation would eliminate the counter clerk jobs, but not the

others. Third, the ALJ asked Peterson the result if attention and

concentration were severely impaired. Peterson thought that a

severe impairment in attention and concentration would create

difficulty in all the occupations listed. At this point, Bellow's

attorney examined Peterson. 

DISCUSSION

We will uphold a decision to deny SSI benefits if the

administrative decision is supported by substantial evidence in the

record and applies the proper legal standards in evaluating the

evidence. Bowling v. Shalala, 36 F.3d 431, 434 (5th Cir. 1994).

Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance but more than a

scintilla. Id. 

When an ALJ uses vocational expert testimony to support his

findings, record evidence must adequately support assumptions made

by the expert. Id. at 436. An ALJ's hypothetical question is

defective unless (1) it incorporates reasonably all disabilities of

the claimant recognized by the ALJ, and (2) the claimant or her

representative is afforded the opportunity to correct deficiencies

in the hypothetical. Id.2 Bellow acknowledges that she had an
symptom in his hypothetical question was not reversible error.

Id., slip op. at 14. 

3 Bellow's difficulties in daily living and social functioning are

results of her symptoms; her difficulties are not separate

disabilities. 

4

opportunity to correct deficiencies in the ALJ's hypotheticals, but

she argues that the questions did not incorporate reasonably all

her disabilities recognized by the ALJ. 

Although the first hypothetical incorporated exactly the

findings made by the ALJ, Bellow focuses on the characteristics of

depressive syndrome and their effect on Bellow as noted by the ALJ

on the psychiatric review form. The second hypothetical assumed a

moderate reduction in the ability to maintain attention and

concentration, which is only one of the three characteristics

listed on the psychiatric review form. Nevertheless, the other two

characteristics, sleep disturbance and decreased energy, would not

affect Bellow separately in the workplace; rather, they would

result in a reduction in concentration and attention. Therefore,

the ALJ's second hypothetical incorporated reasonably the

disabilities recognized by the ALJ.3 

Bellow also complains about Peterson's testimony concerning

available jobs in three local parishes. She contends that such

jobs must exist in the national economy. Nevertheless, work exists

in the national economy when work exists in the immediate area in

which the claimant lives. 20 C.F.R. § 416.966(a)(1). Peterson's

testimony concerning the jobs available in the three local parishes
5

is sufficient to show that Bellow could find work in the national

economy.

Because the vocational expert's testimony is proper and

provides substantial evidence in support of the ALJ's decision, we

conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment

to the Commissioner of Social Security. 

AFFIRMED.