Hickman v. Chater, Commissioner ( 1997 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
VANESSA Y. HICKMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
No. 96-1953
SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern.
Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge.
(CA-94-155-4-H)
Submitted: August 26, 1997
Decided: September 16, 1997
Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Richard Luby Cannon, III, Greenville, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Janice McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Barbara D. Kocher,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appel-
lee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Vanessa Hickman appeals the district court's order upholding the
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner) that
she is not disabled and therefore not entitled to supplemental security
income (SSI). We affirm.
Hickman claimed disability from July 31, 1992, through November
16, 1993. She had a long history of morbid obesity and underwent
gastric bypass surgery in November 1993. Following surgery, she lost
a considerable amount of weight. She asserts that the Commissioner
should have found her disabled at the third step of the sequential eval-
uation process, see 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d) (1997), because her
impairments met or equaled an impairment listed at 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404,
Subpt. P, App. 1 (1997) (the Listing). We review the Commissioner's
decision to determine if substantial evidence supports the decision
and the correct law was applied. Pass v. Chater , 65 F.3d 1200, 1202
(4th Cir. 1995).
Hickman contends that, until her weight dropped after her surgery,
she was disabled under § 9.09 of the Listing because of obesity. That
regulation requires that a woman of Hickman's height weigh at least
274 pounds and have an identified physical problem in addition to her
obesity. Assuming that Hickman's weight qualified, she did not pro-
duce evidence that would render her disabled under§ 9.09. Although
she claimed to suffer from back and leg pain, she offered no x-ray or
similar imaging evidence, as required by § 9.09(A), showing arthritis
in a joint or the lumbosacral spine. Rather, the x-rays offered showed
only minor degenerative changes at the left sacroiliac joint. Similarly,
while Hickman's blood pressure was elevated, the numerous blood
pressure readings contained in the record do not show diastolic pres-
sure that was persistently greater than 100 mm. Hg, as required by
§ 9.09(B). There is no assertion that Hickman suffered from any other
2
physical maladies specifically identified in § 9.09. Substantial evi-
dence thus supports the finding that Hickman's obesity did not qualify
under the Listing.
The Commissioner also correctly concluded that Hickman's vari-
ous problems, when considered in combination, did not meet or equal
one listed in the regulations. See Hines v. Bowen, 872 F.2d 56, 59 (4th
Cir. 1989). Her hypertension was not serious, although doctors moni-
tored it. While she suffered from diabetes, the condition was con-
trolled with medication. The ALJ found Hickman's complaints of
pain not credible to the degree alleged because Hickman took no sig-
nificant pain medication, engaged in daily activities such as cleaning,
vacuuming, and dishwashing, and had sought no treatment for pain
other than relatively mild painkillers. We find no reason to disturb
this properly supported credibility determination.
We accordingly affirm the judgment.* We dispense with oral argu-
ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the deci-
sional process.
AFFIRMED
_________________________________________________________________
*Hickman claims that the ALJ should have solicited the testimony of
a vocational expert. However, she did not raise this claim at the adminis-
trative level, in her motion for judgment on the pleadings in the district
court, or in her objections to the magistrate judge's report. Therefore, she
has waived her right to raise the issue on appeal. See Pleasant Valley
Hosp., Inc. v. Shalala, 32 F.3d 67, 70 (4th Cir. 1994); Muth v. United
States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993); Praylow v. Martin, 761 F.2d 179,
180 n.1 (4th Cir. 1985).
3