Henry Robinson, Jr. v. Michael Astrue, Commissioner

Filing 920101217

Opinion

Case: 10-30747 Document: 00511324042 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/16/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
December 16, 2010 N o . 10-30747 S u m m a r y Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

H E N R Y M. ROBINSON, JR., 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 Western District of Louisiana U S D C No. 5:09-CV-475

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* T h e Appeals Council of the Social Security Administration denied Henry M . Robinson, Jr.'s claims for disability benefits and supplemental Social Security in c o m e . The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana u p h e ld the denial. We AFFIRM. R o b in s o n claims he has been disabled since October 1, 2004, due to a v a r ie t y of ailments. The claims were initially denied in late 2005. Robinson

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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

*

Case: 10-30747 Document: 00511324042 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/16/2010

No. 10-30747 t h e n requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). In J a n u a r y 2008, the ALJ denied benefits. In March 2009, the Appeals Council d e c lin e d to overturn this decision, making the ALJ's ruling the final decision of t h e Commissioner. Robinson then filed a complaint in district court, and the m a t t e r was referred to a magistrate judge for final decision. The decision to d e n y benefits was found to be supported by substantial evidence and upheld on A u g u s t 3, 2010. Robinson timely appealed to this court. By statute, decisions on the rights of individuals applying for these b e n e fits are to be made by the Commissioner of Social Security. 42 U.S.C. § 4 0 5 (a ). The Commissioner has the authority to make regulations and establish p r o c e d u r e s to carry out these responsibilities. Id. We will refer to the decisions m a d e on Robinson's claims as having been made by the Commissioner, though t h e y were reached by others through the procedures that have been established fo r resolving these claims. " I n reviewing the Commissioner's determination, we consider only whether t h e Commissioner applied the proper legal standards and whether substantial e v id e n c e in the record supports the decision to deny benefits." Audler v. Astrue, 5 0 1 F.3d 446, 447 (5th Cir. 2007). Substantial evidence is "such relevant

e v id e n c e as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a c o n c lu s io n ." Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). R o b in s o n 's pro se brief presents many claims from which we perceive one g e n e r a l argument: substantial evidence did not support the ALJ's decision that R o b in s o n is not disabled. The ALJ considered the opinions of three doctors who p e r fo r m e d consultative examinations on Robinson and indicated that, despite s o m e physical limitations, Robinson is capable of sitting for a full workday. The s t a t e agency physician echoed these findings. The ALJ also noted that the a b s e n c e of any observable signs of the severe pain Robinson claimed undermined h is credibility as a witness. See Hollis v. Bowen, 837 F.2d 1378, 1384 (5th Cir. 2

Case: 10-30747 Document: 00511324042 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/16/2010

No. 10-30747 1 9 8 8 ). Based on the medical record, the ALJ ruled Robinson had a residual fu n c tio n a l capacity ("RFC") for medium work, reduced by some physical lim ita tio n s. Robinson also claims that the ALJ asked a vocational expert improper q u e s t io n s . We disagree. The ALJ asked proper hypothetical questions about w h e t h e r someone with Robinson's RFC, age, education, and work experience c o u ld perform any jobs that were widely available in the national economy. See B o w lin g v. Shalala, 36 F.3d 431, 435-36 (5th Cir. 1994). The expert testified t h a t , based on Robinson's limitations, Robinson was physically capable of p e r fo r m in g the requirements of an "assembler of buttons & notions" and "escort v e h ic le driver," and that these jobs were available in the national economy. Based on this testimony, the ALJ found that Robinson was not disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). A doctor who conducted a medical

e x a m in a t io n of Robinson after the ALJ's decision claimed Robinson's RFC was m o r e limited than the doctors who examined Robinson prior to the ALJ's hearing b e lie v e d . This single opinion does not disturb the substantial evidence the ALJ r e lie d upon in making his findings. A F F IR M E D .

3