Young v. Chater, Commissioner ( 1997 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-2867
GINGER L. YOUNG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District
Judge. (CA-94-481-F)
Argued: December 5, 1996 Decided: January 3, 1997
Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: H. Russell Vick, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Barbara Dickerson Kocher, Assistant United States Attorney,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Janice McKenzie
Cole, United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Ginger L. Young pursued a claim for supplemental security
income and disability insurance benefits under the Social Security
Act, alleging that she was disabled due to back pain and mental
health problems. An administrative law judge (ALJ) denied bene-
fits, reasoning that Young was not disabled because her medical
problems did not prevent her from performing her past relevant work
and that her subjective complaints of pain were not credible.
After the Appeals Council denied review, Young filed the present
petition. The district court held that the decision of the ALJ was
legally correct, supported by substantial evidence, and should be
affirmed. See Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996)
("Under the Social Security Act, [federal courts] must uphold the
factual findings of the Secretary if they are supported by substan-
tial evidence and were reached through application of the correct
legal standard.").
Young now appeals, asserting that the ALJ erred in determining
that she could return to her past relevant work and in finding that
her subjective complaints of pain were not fully credible. Having
carefully considered the arguments of the parties and the record,
we conclude that the district court was correct and affirm on its
reasoning. Young v. Shalala, No. 94-481 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 16, 1995).
AFFIRMED
2