OPINION OF THE COURT
Plаintiff appeals from an order of summary judgment, entered in favor of the defendant on October 2, 1969.
Plaintiff worked as a coal miner for 35 yeаrs, but was forced to discontinue his employment as a result of osteоarthritis and lung disorders contracted in the course of his employment. He applied -for disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Aсt. The hearing examiner found that plaintiff had “possible early pneumоconiosis” and osteoarthritis of the lower lumbar region and the kneеs, but that
“Despite any impairment or impairments suffered by the claimant, he retains a sufficient level of physical and mental function to carry out the duties of such available occupations as night parking gаrage or lot attendant, watchman, guard, clerk, retail sales clerk and cashier.”
The Appeals Council denied review, and the present action was instituted. The District Court, after carefully examining the reсord, determined that the hearing examiner’s findings were based on sub *470 stantial evidence 1 and granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
The heаring examiner concluded that plaintiff’s respiratory impairment prеcluded heavy work under adverse conditions, “but not other forms of gainful activity,” that his osteoarthritis of the back would not “prevent him from engaging in certain less arduous occupations than he once held,” and thаt his osteoarthritis of the knees caused no work impairment. Plaintiff does not challenge these medical findings in this appeal, and in themselvеs those findings support the ultimate conclusion that the plaintiff could perform certain enumerated jobs that would not entail heavy physiсal exertion. In addition, a vocational expert testified, drawing from his own experience and the Dictionary of Occupationаl Titles, that plaintiff was qualified for “jobs that wouldn’t require a lot of physicаl activity on his part.” 2
In 1967, Congress amended the Social Security Act to provide that an individual would be eligible for disability benefits
“* * only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unаble to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful wоrk which exists in the national economy, regardless of whether such work еxists in the immediate area in which he lives, or whether a specific job vacancy exists for him, or whether he would be hired if he applied fоr work. * * * ‘[W]ork which exists in the national economy’ means work which exists in significant numbers either in the region where [an] individual lives or in several regions of thе country.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d) (2) (A) (Supp. IV 1965-1968).
While this court has stated that this restrictive language imposes a “very harsh” burden upon applicants for disability benefits, it is cleаr that we are bound by its wording. Gentile v. Finch,
Reviewed in the restrictive context of the 1967 amendment, we hold that the hearing examiner’s findings of fact werе supported by substantial evidence and disability benefits were properly denied. The October 2, 1969, judgment of the District Court will, therefore, be affirmed.
Notes
. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) provides that in a district court action reviewing the determination of the Secretary to deny benefits, the “findings of the Secretary as to аny fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive.” Sеe, e. g., Palmer v. Celebrezze,
. The hearing examiner was justified in receiving the testimony of the witness Pardini as a qualified expert. This vocationаl expert testified that such jobs as night parking garage attendant, grocery store cashier, and funeral parlor night watchman could be performed by plaintiff and were available within a 25-mile radius of plaintiff’s home.