Garcia v. Apfel ( 2000 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-41262
Summary Calendar
IRMA G. GARCIA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
KENNETH S. APFEL,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
_____________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. L-98-CV-117
_____________________________________________
June 8, 2000
Before POLITZ, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Irma G. Garcia appeals the affirmance of the denial of her application for
Supplemental Security Income, contending that the Administrative Law Judge erred in
assessing her credibility regarding her ability to work. She maintains that the ALJ
misstated her daily-living activities and erroneously relied on those activities and on her
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
demeanor at the hearing in making the credibility assessment. Although the ALJ did
err in finding that Garcia performed all of her own housework, the record contains
substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s assessment that Garcia’s daily activities belie
an ability to work.1 Further, it was entirely appropriate for the ALJ to consider
Garcia’s daily-living activities and her demeanor at the hearing as factors in assessing
her credibility.2
Garcia contends that the ALJ’s hypothetical example to the vocational expert
erroneously failed to take into account her persistent dizziness, which limits her
productivity, and her obesity and fatigue, which result in significant limitations in her
ability to lift, sit, stand, and walk. There is substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s
rejection of Garcia’s asserted limitations. The challenged hypothetical example was
not improper.3
Garcia further attacks as inconsistent the ALJ’s findings that she was restricted
from exposure to hazardous machinery, but that she could return to her job as a
vegetable sorter, which requires working around a moving conveyor belt. In light of
the testimony of the vocational expert that a claimant restricted from working with
hazardous machinery could perform work as a vegetable sorter, the record contains
substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s finding that Garcia was capable of
performing her past relevant work as vegetable sorter.
1
See Bowling v. Shalala, 36 F.3d 431 (5th Cir. 1994).
2
Leggett v. Chater, 67 F.3d 558 (5th Cir. 1995); see also Villa v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d 1019(1990).
3
Bowling, 36 F.3d at 434.
2
Garcia next contends that the ALJ should have found her disabled under Grid
Rule 201.17 of the Medical-Vocational Guidelines. As the Medical-Vocational
Guidelines become relevant, however, only upon a finding that the claimant cannot
perform her past relevant work, the ALJ did not err in failing to apply the Medical-
Vocational Guidelines.4
Finally, there is no merit to Garcia’s contention that the ALJ failed to consider
the report of Dr. Luis M. Benavides. The doctor’s medical report is specifically
addressed in the ALJ’s opinion.
The judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.
4
Fields v. Bowen, 805 F.2d 1168 (5th Cir. 1986).
3