Childers v. Apfel, Commissioner ( 1997 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
DARLENE F. CHILDERS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
No. 96-2380
KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington.
Robert J. Staker, Senior District Judge.
(CA-95-335-3)
Submitted: October 7, 1997
Decided: November 17, 1997
Before HAMILTON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and
BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Rose A. Cyrus, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellant. James A.
Winn, Chief Counsel, Region III, Robert S. Drum, Assistant Regional
Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Rebecca A. Betts,
United States Attorney, Sharon Frazier, Assistant United States Attor-
ney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Darlene Childers filed an application for disability insurance bene-
fits in November 1990, for a period of disability from 1987 to 1992.
A hearing was held in February 1992, at which time the Administra-
tive Law Judge ("ALJ") denied the application and the Appeals Coun-
cil affirmed the decision. Childers challenged the Appeals Council's
decision in the district court, which remanded to the Secretary for fur-
ther proceedings. Following a supplemental hearing in May 1994, the
ALJ decided that Childers was not disabled under the Social Security
Act because she has the functional capacity to perform sedentary
work. The Appeals Council denied Childers' request for review. The
ALJ's decision then became the Secretary's final decision.
Childers filed a complaint in the district court challenging the final
decision of the Secretary. The magistrate judge recommended affirm-
ing the Secretary's determination, and the district court adopted the
magistrate's report and recommendation. Childers appealed.
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. 1997); Hays v.
Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990). Childers claims that
substantial evidence does not support the ALJ's finding that her back
problems are not disabling. The evidence in the record showed that
Childers suffers from a lower back sprain. However, the evidence
shows that during the time period for which Childers claims disability
she was physically active and able to participate in household chores
and other hobbies. There was no evidence of any disabling physical
abnormality. The ALJ thoroughly evaluated the evidence and gave
specific reasons for his determination. See Hammond v. Heckler, 765
F.2d 424, 426 (4th Cir. 1985). Because we conclude that the Secre-
tary's decision is supported by substantial evidence and was based on
2
the correct legal standards, we will not disturb that decision. Hays,
907 F.3d at 1456.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. 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
3