UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

LAWRENCE E. JONAS,
Petitioner,

v.                                                                     No. 98-2404

U.S. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD,
Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order
of the United States Railroad Retirement Board.
(98-86-AP)

Submitted: February 23, 1999

Decided: April 21, 1999

Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and
HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Kenneth P. Hicks, Huntington, West Virginia, for Petitioner. Eric T.
Wooden, General Attorney, Steven A. Bartholow, Deputy General
Counsel, RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD, Chicago, Illinois, for
Respondent.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Lawrence E. Jonas appeals from the Railroad Retirement Board's
order affirming denial of a disability annuity under the Railroad
Retirement Act, 45 U.S.C. §§ 231-231u (West 1994 & Supp. 1998).
Jonas asserts that the hearing officer's decision was not supported by
substantial evidence because the hearing officer erroneously rejected
his complaints of pain, erroneously discredited the findings of one
physician, and did not properly consider Jonas' combination of
impairments to determine whether Jonas met or equaled a listing
under 20 C.F.R. § 220, Appendix 1 (1998). Finding no error, we
affirm.

The hearing officer's findings of fact as adopted by the Board are
conclusive if supported by the evidence. See 45 U.S.C. §§ 231g,
335(f). Thus, our review of the findings is limited to "whether the
findings of the Board are based upon substantial evidence in the
record and its conclusions consonant with law." Marr v. Railroad
Retirement Bd., 

, 49 (4th Cir. 1953). Substantial evidence
is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as ade-
quate to support a conclusion." Richardson v. Perales, 

,
401 (1971) (citation omitted). Although substantial evidence is more
than a scintilla of evidence, it is less than a preponderance. See Laws
v. Celebrezze, 

, 642 (4th Cir. 1966). Therefore, in
reviewing for substantial evidence, we do not re-weigh conflicting
evidence, make credibility determinations or substitute our judgment
for that of the Board. See Hays v. Sullivan, 

, 1456 (4th
Cir. 1990). Rather, it is the duty of the hearing officer to make find-
ings of fact and to resolve conflicts in the evidence. See 

review of the parties' briefs and the decision of
the hearing officer and the Board, we find that substantial evidence
supports the Board's decision and affirm it. We grant Jonas' unop-
posed motion to submit this case on the briefs and dispense with oral
argument because the facts and the legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    2