Moore v. Chater ( 1995 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 95-20305
Summary Calendar
THOMAS G. MOORE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
SHIRLEY S. CHATER, Department
of Health & Human Services,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas
(CA-H-94-3118)
(September 25, 1995)
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Thomas Moore appeals the district court’s grant of summary
judgment in favor of the Commissioner affirming the denial of
Moore’s application for disability insurance benefits. We affirm.
Local Rule 47.5 provides: “The publication of opinions that have
no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the
basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on
the public and burdens on the legal profession.” Pursuant to that
Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published.
The ALJ rejected Appellant’s claim at the fifth step of the
well-known sequential process (the impairment prevents the claimant
from doing any other substantial gainful work which exists in the
national economy). 42 U.S.C. § 432(d)(2)(A); Selders v. Sullivan,
914 F.2d 614, 618 (5th Cir. 1990). The ALJ found that Moore
retained the residual functional capacity to perform medium work.
Moore argues that the ALJ’s conclusion is in conflict with the
finding that Moore could not stand or walk more than four hours per
day. Moore relies on Social Security Ruling 83-10, the “Vocational
Expert’s Handbook” published by the Department of Labor, which
states that “a full range of medium work requires standing or
walking, off and on, for a total of approximately six hours in an
eight hour day. . . .” We construe this as a contention that the
record does not contain substantial evidence supporting the
decision.
The flaw in Appellant’s argument is that the ALJ did not find
that Moore could perform a full range of medium work. He found
that Moore could perform medium work subject to the specific
limitation that he stand or walk no more than four hours per day,
limited to one hour at a time. The vocational expert was presented
with a hypothetical question describing precisely all of Moore’s
limitations and he testified that Moore could perform as a
production line welder, production worker, food preparer, assembler
in any industry, or a marker in any industry, and that these
positions existed “by the many thousands” in the national economy,
but were “limited to the hundreds per job” in the regional economy.
2
Since Moore does not challenge the ALJ’s findings relating to his
limitations, the ALJ was correct in relying on the expert’s
testimony that, subject to those specific limitations, Moore was
capable of performing relevant work available in the workplace.
AFFIRMED.
3