Kevin Cannon v. Michael Astrue, Commissioner

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [10-50219 Affirmed] Judge: EHJ , Judge: EGJ , Judge: EMG. Mandate pull date is 01/03/2011 [10-50219]

Kevin Cannon v. Michaele: 10-50219 Document: 00511288510 Cas Astrue, Commissioner

Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/09/2010

Doc. 0

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
November 9, 2010 N o . 10-50219 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

K E V I N CANNON, Plaintiff - Appellant v. M I C H A E L J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Western District of Texas U S D C No. 1:08-cv-848

B e fo r e JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and GARZA, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* K e v in Cannon alleges numerous health problems stemming mostly from h is weight of 523 pounds. Believing that his ailments render him disabled under t h e Social Security Act ("the Act"), Cannon applied for benefits under Titles II a n d XVI. The Social Security Administration denied his claims, and Cannon a p p e a le d to an administrative law judge ("ALJ"). After considering Cannon's t e s t im o n y , as well as testimony of a vocational expert, and after reviewing a

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 10-50219 Document: 00511288510 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/09/2010

No. 10-50219 le n g t h y record that included reports from at least six different experts who had e x a m in e d Cannon, the ALJ made several findings and concluded that Cannon i s not disabled under the Act. Cannon appealed to the district court, which r e fe r r e d the matter to a magistrate judge. The magistrate judge concluded that t h e ALJ applied the proper legal standard, and that the ALJ's decision was s u p p o r t e d by substantial evidence. The district court affirmed the magistrate's r e p o r t and recommendations over Cannon's objections. C a n n o n timely appealed, arguing that the ALJ erred in three ways. First, C a n n o n argues that the ALJ did not give proper weight to the opinion of C a n n o n 's treating physician. Second, Cannon argues that the ALJ's findings as t o Cannon's residual functional capacity are not consistent with the medical e v id e n c e in the record. Third, Cannon argues that the ALJ's determination is n o t consistent with the testimony of the vocational experts who testified that C a n n o n could perform no jobs given his alleged disability. We have reviewed the record carefully and conclude that the ALJ applied t h e correct legal standard and reached a decision supported by substantial e v id e n c e . Although not every expert agreed as to Cannon's precise abilities and lim it a t io n s , the "Commissioner's decision is granted great deference and will not b e disturbed unless the reviewing court cannot find substantial evidence in the r e c o r d to support the Commissioner's decision or finds that the Commissioner m a d e an error of law." Leggett v. Chater, 67 F.3d 558, 564 (5th Cir. 1995). AFFIRMED.

2