Fеlicitas Barajas appeals the decision of the district court affirming the Secretary of Health and Human Services’ denial of her claim for Supрlemental Security Income. Finding the decision supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.
I. Statement of the Case
Barajas, a 62-year-old woman with an eighth grade education, worked as a maid and housekeeper in private homes for 25 years. She alleges that she is now disabled as a result of rheumatoid arthritis, which causes pain in her joints, and because of the consequences of surgery in 1980 for an acute perforated appendicitis, surgery for a hernia in 1981, and high blood pressure. The administrative law judge (AU) found that none of these impairments was severe enough to warrant a finding of disability under the Social Security Act. He thereforе denied her claim for benefits and the district court affirmed.
II. Discussion
Barajas argues two points of error on appeal: (A) that the AU erred in concluding that the imрairment was not severe; and (B) that the AU failed to give adequate weight to the opinions of Barajas’ treating physicians.
A. Severity of the Impairment
In determining whether a claimant is eligible for Supplemental Security Income, the Secretary must follow a sequential process of evaluation specified by the regulations.
Lofton v. Schweiker,
The sole question is whether the AU properly determined that Barajas’ impairment was not severe. Thе regulations provide: “If you do not have any impairments) which significantly limits your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities, we will find that you do not have a severe impairment and are, therefore, not disabled.” Id. The regulations define a non-severe impairment as one that “does not significantly limit your physical or mental abilities to do basic work activities.” Id. § 416.921(a). Basic work activities are defined as “the abilities and aptitude necessary to do most jobs.” 1 Id. § 416.921(b).
*644 Barajas argues that this standard is different from a determination of severity under the list of impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subp. P, App. 1, § 4.00(C), used as the standard of evaluation by the district cоurt, which states:
Hypertensive vascular disease does not result in severe impairment unless it causes severe damage to one or more of four еnd organs: heart, brain, kidneys, or eyes (retinae). The presence of such damage must be established by appropriate abnormal physical signs and laboratory findings as specified in 4.02 or 4.04, or for the body system involved.
We agree. The appendix relied upon by the district court is a listing of “per se disabilities” and should be used only if the claimant has satisfied the Secretary that her impairment is severe.
Chico v. Schweiker,
We nonetheless find the district court’s error to be immaterial to our decision. The AU cited and followed Section 416.921(b) as the proper standard of evaluation. We must uphold his findings if they are supported by substantial evidence.
Chaney v. Califano,
Barajas does suffer from rheumatoid arthritis, which causes mild swelling in her joints and mild limitation of motion in her hands, wrists, elbows, and shoulders. Nonetheless, a physical-capacities evaluation showed that she could sit from four to eight hours a day, walk or stand two hours a day, lift up to ten pounds frequently, use her hands for simple grasping and fine manipulations, but not in pushing and pulling arm controls, and occasionally bend and reach. This evidence is sufficient to substantiate the AU’s finding that Barajas’ arthritis was not severe enough to be disabling under the Social Security Act. 2
The AU also considered her complaints of pain from the arthritis and found them not to be credible. While the AU must consider subjective evidence of pain,
De Paepe v. Richardson,
B. Weight Assigned to the Reports of Treating Physicians
Barajas argues that the testimony of her treating physicians that she was totally disabled was not given adequate consideration by the AU, and that, consequently, his decision is not supported by substantial evidence. The opinions, diagnosis, and medical evidence of a treating physician whose familiarities with the patient’s injuries, treatment, and responses over a length of time, should be accorded considerable weight.
Smith v. Schweiker,
*645 This patient had a ‘stroke’ about 5 years ago and cannot hold her head straight; has extremely poor vision; has hyperthyroidism, hypertension, hypertensive cardiovascular disease, arthritis, obesity and very poor oral hygiene in addition to third degree procidentia (dropped bladder, womb, and rectum) and she has been permanently and totally disabled for 3 to 5 years.
(emphasis and quotations in original). It is clear that this diagnosis was based on impairments, such as the “stroke,” which were not explained or made the basis of the application for benefits. J.B. Brame, M.D., stated in 1980 that Barajas had “moderate to severe arthritic changes” and hypertension which were under “only fair control” with medication. He made no conclusion as to disability. Dr. Brame’s evaluation was consistent with the findings of the examining physician for the Secretary that Barajas has moderate rheumatoid arthritis, aggravated by obesity, that could be “helped with the use of anti-inflammatory agents as well as analgesics and appropriate physicаl therapy.” Thus the AU could reasonably have concluded that Barajas’ impairment was moderate, not severe. Furthermore, only the examining physiciаn conducted a physical-capacities evaluation, from which he concluded that Barajas’ impairments did not prevent her from performing bаsic work activities.
It is within the administrative law judge’s discretion to resolve issues of conflicting evidence.
Jones v. Heckler,
AFFIRMED.
Notes
. Examples of basic work activities include:
(1) Physical functions such as walking, standing, sitting, lifting, pushing, pulling, reаching, carrying, or handling;
(2) Capacities for seeing, hearing, and speaking;
(3) Understanding, carrying out, and remembering simple instructions;
(4) Use of judgment;
(5) Responding appropriately to supervision, co-workers and usual work situations; and
*644 (6) Dealing with changes in a routine work setting.
20 C.F.R. § 416.921(b).
. The proper weight to be accorded this evidence is discussed in the next section.