Wright v. Chater

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: July 7, 1995
• Docket: 95-50028
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS for the Fifth Circuit

_____________________________________

No. 95-50028 Summary Calendar _____________________________________

CHARLES WRIGHT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (A-93-CV-818) ______________________________________________________

(July 24, 1995)

Before JOLLY, DUHÉ and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Appellant Charles Wright was denied Supplemental Security

Income benefits by the Administrative Law Judge. The Appeals

Council denied review. The district court granted judgment for the

Secretary. Finding no error, we affirm.

Our task is to determine from the entire record whether the

Secretary applied the proper legal standards and whether her

decision is supported by substantial evidence. Anthony v.

1 Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published. Sullivan, 954 F.2d 289, 292 (5th Cir. 1992). Substantial evidence

is more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance. Anderson v.

Sullivan, 887 F.2d 630, 633 (5th Cir. 1989). A claimant bears the

overall burden of proving his disability. Cook v. Heckler, 750

F.2d 391, 393 (5th Cir. 1985).

The ALJ applied the well known five-step process and concluded

at step five that Wright could perform light work. Our review of

the record convinces us that the ALJ was correct at each step.

Considering the limitations that Wright is unable to work around

smoke, dust, animal hair, and fumes, the ALJ found a significant

number of jobs for which Wright is suited (e.g., clerk) exist in

the national economy. He relied on objective medical facts, the

diagnoses and opinions of treating and examining physicians,

Appellant's subjective evidence of pain and disability, and

Appellant's age, education and work history. De Paepe v.

Richardson, 464 F.2d 92, 94 (5th Cir. 1972).

Though a vocational witness testified that additional

limitations such as mental conditions and drowsiness would

eliminate a worker's ability to retain a clerk job, the ALJ did not

find these limitations were present. That witness's testimony did

not, as Wright argues, eliminate the clerk job for Wright. The

finding that Wright could work as a clerk is supported by

substantial evidence.

We have considered Wright's allegations that the ALJ's

decision was not based on the proper legal standard and find it to

be without merit.

2 AFFIRMED.