Surkand v. Barnhart ( 2002 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-31444
Summary Calendar
FLORENCE JOY SURKAND,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 00-CV-3175-C
--------------------
September 30, 2002
Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Florence J. Surkand appeals the district court’s dismissal
of her 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) complaint seeking review of the denial
of disability benefits. Surkand challenges the determination of
the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) that she had transferable
skills.
This court’s review of the Commissioner’s decision “is
limited to determining whether that decision is supported by
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 01-31444
-2-
substantial evidence and whether the proper legal standards were
applied.” Ripley v. Chater, 67 F.3d 552, 555 (5th Cir. 1995).
For individuals of “advanced age” with impairments limiting
them to sedentary or light work, the Commissioner must show that
the individual acquired skills in his past work that are
transferable to skilled or semiskilled work. See 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1568(d)(4); 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P, App. 2, Rules
201-02 (Table No. 1). A claimant has transferable skills “when
the skilled or semi-skilled work activities [the claimant] did in
past work can be used to meet the requirements of skilled or
semi-skilled work activities of other jobs or kinds of work.” 20
C.F.R. § 404.1568(d)(1).
The vocational expert (VE) considered the “extensive use of
the telephone, [and] being able to interact with individuals on
the telephone” as skills from Surkand’s prior work that were
transferable to a job as an appointment clerk or receptionist.
He additionally testified that the adjustment to such positions
would not be difficult for Surkand because the positions would
require a “more restricted use of [her] prior skill.” Based on
this testimony, the ALJ “concluded that considering Ms. Surkand’s
age, educational background, work experience, and residual
functional capacity, she is capable of making a successful
adjustment to work which exists in significant numbers in the
national economy.” The ALJ’s findings comport with the
applicable regulations and are supported by substantial evidence.
No. 01-31444
-3-
See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1568(d); Vaughan v. Shalala, 58 F.3d 129, 132
(5th Cir. 1995).
Surkand argues, however, that the ALJ was also required to
determine that the skill provides “an advantage so meaningful
that it outweighs [her] adversities in RFC, age, and/or education
when competing in the labor market.” Surkand’s argument is
without merit. Social Security Ruling 82-41 and the training
guide issued by the Regional Commissioner in Atlanta, upon which
Surkand’s argument is based, do not impose such a requirement on
the ALJ.
Although Surkand also challenges the VE’s determination,
adopted by the ALJ, that her ability “to interact with
individuals on the telephone,” is a skill, she fails to brief
this issue on appeal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225
(5th Cir. 1993). Therefore, the issue is deemed abandoned.
Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the district court
is AFFIRMED.