Professional Documents
Culture Documents
William Adams v. Otis R. Bowen, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant, 867 F.2d 608, 4th Cir. (1989)
William Adams v. Otis R. Bowen, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant, 867 F.2d 608, 4th Cir. (1989)
William Adams v. Otis R. Bowen, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant, 867 F.2d 608, 4th Cir. (1989)
2d 608
Unpublished Disposition
1
I.
William Adams appeals from a district court order affirming the denial of social
security disability benefits. We affirm.
At the time of the administrative decision, Adams was forty-two years old and
had obtained a sixth grade education. His chief former employment was as a
coal miner. The ALJ found that "claimant has a severe left ankle area soft tissue
injury, treatment history for left arm, wrist and left leg fibular fractures, ... mild
chronic low back strain, lifelong intelligence limitations attributable to his sixth
grade education and 77 verbal I.Q., ... anxiety and depression, mild at most."
The ALJ concluded that appellant was unable to perform his past relevant work
as a coal miner. However, the ALJ found that the appellant still had the
"residual functional capacity to perform the physical exertion and nonexertional
requirements of work except for activity beyond the light and sedentary levels
defined by the regulations." A vocational expert presented with the limitations
found by the ALJ concluded that there were simple, low stress, repetitive,
routine jobs which the appellant could perform. Thus, the ALJ concluded that
the appellant was not disabled and not entitled to disability insurance.
II.
4
Under the Social Security Act, the scope of judicial review of the final decision
of the Secretary is limited to whether, based on the record as a whole, the
decision is supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 405(g) (West
1983); Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). Substantial evidence
is:
evidence.' "
6
Shively v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 987, 989 (4th Cir.1984) (quoting Laws v.
Celebrezze, 368 F.2d 640, 642 (4th Cir.1966) (citations omitted)). It is clear
that the medical evidence of appellant's physical impairments support the ALJ's
findings. A closer question is the extent of the appellant's psychological
impairments. Again, there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ's finding
of no disability.
On review of the record as a whole, we hold that the ALJ's findings of Adams'
impairments and pain are supported by substantial evidence. The vocational
expert's testimony, in response to a hypothetical question based on the findings
of the ALJ, substantially supported the finding that there are jobs which Adams
can perform despite his limitations, and that he is not disabled.
10
AFFIRMED.