Filed: November 4, 1997
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-1725
(CA-95-2745-HAR)
Glander Whitehead,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
Kenneth S. Apfel, etc.,
Defendant - Appellee.
O R D E R
The Court amends its opinion filed October 20, 1997, as
follows:
On the cover sheet, section 2 -- the appellee's name is
corrected to read "Kenneth S. Apfel."
For the Court - By Direction
/s/ Patricia S. Connor
Clerk
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
GLANDER WHITEHEAD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
No. 96-1725
KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
John R. Hargrove, Senior District Judge.
(CA-95-2745-HAR)
Submitted: April 15, 1997
Decided: October 20, 1997
Before HALL, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Robert R. Jenkins, Timothy E. Mering, Paul R. Schlitz, Jr., JENKINS,
BLOCK & MERING, P.C., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant.
Charlotte Hardnett, Chief Counsel, Region III, Nora Koch, Assistant
Regional Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Philadelphia, Pennsylva-
nia; Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, Allen F. Loucks,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Glander Whitehead appeals the district court's order upholding the
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security finding that White-
head was not entitled to disability insurance benefits or supplemental
security income. Because substantial evidence supports the Commis-
sioner's decision, we affirm.
Whitehead was born in 1954. He has a ninth grade education and
previous work experience as a tractor-trailer driver. Whitehead
alleged disability commencing on August 13, 1991, because of cervi-
cal strain, right-side weakness, and headaches. Medical records reveal
that Whitehead underwent a cervical laminectomy for stenosis in
1991. Following the operation, Whitehead's ability to lift and carry
was limited, he suffered from bowel and bladder incontinence, and his
ability to reach, handle, push, and pull was markedly diminished. He
walked slowly, using a cane. His ability to sit for long periods was
not impaired.
Whitehead's headaches improved with medication. At his hearing
before an ALJ, he reported that his headaches occurred two or three
times a month and lasted about an hour. Whitehead also testified that
he used no brace or back support and took no medication for neck
pain. Whitehead said that he could lift five or six pounds and sit for
six hours during an eight-hour period. He spent his days watching
television.
A vocational expert (VE) testified that a person with Whitehead's
limitations, which the ALJ accurately described, could no longer per-
form his past relevant work but was capable of performing some jobs,
including security monitor. The jobs existed in significant numbers in
the region. After reviewing a medical report submitted after the hear-
ing, the VE stated that Whitehead was limited to sedentary work. The
2
ALJ found that, despite this limitation, Whitehead remained able to
perform the job of security monitor because that job did not require
standing.
Although Whitehead suffered from some sensory and functional
impairments, he remained capable of performing sedentary work.
After carefully examining all the evidence of record, including medi-
cal reports, the transcript of the hearing before the ALJ, and the post-
hearing opinion of the VE, we conclude that substantial evidence sup-
ports the Commissioner's determination that Whitehead is not dis-
abled. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g) (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).
We therefore affirm the decision of the magistrate judge.* We dis-
pense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
fully presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
_________________________________________________________________
* With the parties' consent, a magistrate judge conducted the proceed-
ings in this case. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(c)(1), (c)(3) (1994).
3