Kelvin Wells v. Michael Astrue

Filing

Kelvin Wells v. Michael Astrue

Doc. 0

Case: 09-30727

Document: 00511216604

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/26/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
August 26, 2010 N o . 09-30727 S u m m a r y Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

K E L V I N WELLS, P la in t iff - Appellant v. M I C H A E L J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, D e fe n d a n t - Appellee

A p p e a l from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana N o . 3:07-CV-889

B e fo r e JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* K e lv in Wells appeals the judgment of the district court, which found no r e v e r s ib l e error by the Social Security Administration (SSA) in denying him d is a b ilit y benefits. For the reasons set out below, we affirm the judgment of the d is t r ic t court. T h e district court assigned the case to a magistrate judge. The magistrate ju d g e recommended finding in favor of the SSA. Specifically, he held that: (1)

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-30727

Document: 00511216604

Page: 2

Date Filed: 08/26/2010

No. 09-30727 s u ffic ie n t evidence supported the SSA's determination that Wells could work; (2) that the SSA did not ignore evidence of Wells's medications and their side effects o r any other medical conditions; (3) the SSA complied with the terms of remand in the previous appeal; (4) Wells failed to show that the SSA violated his right t o due process or equal protection; and (5) no new evidence Wells offered justified a remand under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), as it was all immaterial. Wells objected to t h e magistrate judge's report and recommendations, offering essentially c o n c lu s o r y arguments of error. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's rep ort and recommendations over Wells's objection and entered judgment. Wells t h e n moved for reconsideration of the judgment, focusing in particular on the S S A 's omission of several pages from the administrative record, which he c h a r g e d to be in bad faith. The district court denied the motion. I n his brief before us Wells asks us to reverse the denial of his benefits and a ls o to order an immediate payment of benefits and sanctions. In his request for s a n c t io n s , his brief focuses on his allegation of bad-faith tactics by the SSA, but h e does not develop his arguments with any specificity. This failure would o r d in a r ily result in waiver of his arguments, but because he proceeds pro se, we w ill consider his appeal of the district court's determination rejecting bad faith a n d we will review the SSA's denial of benefits. We begin with his allegations of bad faith. The district court determined in denying the motion for reconsideration that there was no bad faith, a factual fin d in g that we can reverse only if we find clear error. As we have noted, Wells a r g u e d in his motion for reconsideration that several pages were intentionally o m it t e d from the administrative record, which we take to be the essence of his b a d faith argument on appeal. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the d is t r i c t court did not clearly err by determining that the SSA's omission was a c c id e n ta l.

2

Case: 09-30727

Document: 00511216604

Page: 3

Date Filed: 08/26/2010

No. 09-30727 T u r n in g to the SSA's denial of benefits, our review is limited to d e t e r m in in g whether substantial evidence supports the conclusion of the a d m in is t r a t iv e law judge (ALJ) and whether the ALJ applied the law correctly. Myers v. Apfel, 238 F.3d 617, 619 (5th Cir. 2001). As required by a previous r e m a n d , the SSA took additional evidence regarding Wells's mental condition. The ALJ describes the evidence considered, including the results of mental h e a lt h examinations by three different mental health professionals and evidence r e g a r d in g Wells's back problems. The ALJ first analyzed Wells's claims of p h y s ic a l impairments, which the ALJ found limit him to performing light work, a s defined in 20 C.F.R. § 416.967(b). Next, the ALJ considered the mental h e a lt h evidence and Wells's testimony, concluding that this evidence primarily e s t a b lis h e d that Wells was prone to angry outbursts and that he would not fu n c tio n well in a multiracial environment. Thus, the ALJ narrowed the field o f work for which Wells was suited to light work that required minimal in t e r a c t io n with others. The ALJ then considered the testimony of a vocational e x p e r t , who testified that Wells could work as a "housekeeper/cleaner or an a s s e m b le r ." The ALJ specifically noted that there were approximately 2 million jo b s available in those categories, and that those areas were not necessarily the o n ly fields in which Wells might find employment. On this basis, the ALJ c o n c lu d e d that Wells could perform jobs that exist in significant numbers in the n a t io n a l economy and denied Wells's claim for benefits on that basis. We agree w it h the district court that sufficient evidence supported this determination. The judgment of the district court is, therefore, A F F IR M E D .

3