PER CURIAM.
Frances Hull Brown (plaintiff), individually and as administratrix of the estate of Robert Ervin Brown (claimant), appeals from the district court’s holding that there was substantial evidence to support the Secretary’s denial of claimant’s social security disability benefits claim. Plaintiff was substituted as party-plaintiff when claimant died during the pendency of this action.
If there is substantial supporting evidence on the record as a whole for the Secretary’s decision, that decision will not be overturned. Laws v. Celebrezze, 368 F.2d 640 (4 Cir. 1966). Here, there is medical evidence which indicates that, although claimant’s August 9, 1960, heart attack restricted his activities to some extent, it did not result in heart enlargement, irregular heart rhythm, heart murmurs or significant heart impairment. Claimant stated to the Veterans’ Administration physician that his doctor had told him he could do eight hours of light work per day. In short, there is ample evidence to support the hearing examiner’s finding that claimant made a normal and satisfactory recovery from his heart attack and that the residuals of this condition would not have prevented claimant from engaging in substantial gainful activity.
On this record the Secretary’s denial of disability benefits will not be disturbed. The judgment below is
Affirmed.
What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to issues that may appear in civil law issues involving government actors. The issue is: "Did the court conclude that it should defer to agency discretion? For example, if the action was committed to agency discretion. Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".