Grothe v. Barnhart , 121 F. App'x 56 ( 2005 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 15, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-10676
Summary Calendar
THOMAS MICHAEL GROTHE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:03-CV-605-Y
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Thomas Michael Grothe appeals the district court’s
affirmance of the Commissioner’s denial of his application for
disability insurance benefits. Grothe argues that the
administrative law judge (ALJ) erred by crediting the opinion of
a physician who was not a specialist. Grothe also contends that
the ALJ erred by concluding that he could return to his past work
as a vocational instructor. He contends that he has seen a
specialist who is willing to testify that he is disabled.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
The record supports the ALJ’s decision to afford
considerable weight to the disputed medical opinion. See 20 CFR
§ 404.1527. An examination of the record as a whole shows that
there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s determination
that Grothe retained the capacity to perform his past relevant
work. See Ripley v. Chater, 67 F.3d 552, 555 (5th Cir. 1995);
see also Griego v. Sullivan, 940 F.2d 942, 945 (5th Cir. 1991).
Grothe’s allegations concerning a specialist do not change this
analysis. Grothe has shown no error in the district court’s
judgment or in the Commissioner’s decision to deny his
application for benefits. Accordingly, the judgment of the
district court is AFFIRMED.