Court Opinion

ID: 1001155
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:51:23.242071+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:11:13.530716
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

BRENDA J. DAVID,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
                                                                     No. 99-2275
KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge.
(CA-98-991-A)

Submitted: February 15, 2000

Decided: March 21, 2000

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges,
and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Emily J. Kaufmann, LEGAL SERVICES OF NORTHERN VIR-
GINIA, INC., Falls Church, Virginia, for Appellant. James A. Winn,
Regional Chief Counsel, Patricia M. Smith, Deputy Chief Counsel,
Nora R. Koch, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of the General
Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania; Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Leslie
McClendon, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Brenda J. David appeals from the denial of Social Secur-
ity disability benefits. We affirm.

David suffers from an injured back and multiple diseases, including
lupus and diabetes. In 1994, she applied for Social Security disability
benefits. After a hearing on this application, an administrative law
judge ("ALJ") found that David is impaired as a result of her numer-
ous disorders but that she is nonetheless capable of performing seden-
tary work. Based on this finding, the ALJ concluded that David is not
eligible for disability benefits.

David sought review of this determination in the district court. The
case was referred to a magistrate judge, who recommended that sum-
mary judgment be granted in favor of the Commissioner. The district
court overruled David's exceptions, adopted the report and recom-
mendation of the magistrate judge, and granted summary judgment to
the Commissioner. David appealed to this Court.

David initially challenges the ALJ's finding that she has no signifi-
cant non-exertional limitations. She contends that this finding over-
looked her inability to stoop, her chronic eructation (belching), and
her muscle spasms. The record, however, contains substantial evi-
dence establishing that David is not incapable of stooping and that her
eructation does not limit her capacity to work. See Hays v. Sullivan,
907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990) (noting that ALJ's findings must
be upheld if supported by substantial evidence). Moreover, the ALJ

                    2
accounted for David's spasms in his finding that she can only do sed-
entary work.

David also faults the ALJ for discounting her testimony about the
amount of pain she was experiencing. The record, however, does not
contain evidence of medical conditions that could account for the
degree of pain described by David. See Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585,
591 (4th Cir. 1996). Furthermore, David's own testimony at the hear-
ing indicated that though she may be limited by her pain, she is not
disabled by it.

For these reasons, we affirm the district court's decision adopting
the recommendation of the magistrate judge to grant summary judg-
ment to the Commissioner. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materi-
als before the court and argument would not aid the decisional pro-
cess.

AFFIRMED

                    3