Selvera v. Apfel ( 2000 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 99-51020
Summary Calendar
__________________
ELAINE E. SELVERA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
KENNETH S. APFEL,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(A-98-CV-656-AA)
_________________________________________________________________
June 13, 2000
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Elaine E. Selvera appeals from a judgment affirming the
Commissioner’s decision denying social security supplemental income
benefits.
Selvera contends: although she has a GED, substantial
evidence indicates she is intellectually only at the elementary-
education level of performance, and, therefore, the jobs the
administrative law judge (ALJ) found capable of performing are
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
above her actual ability; the ALJ failed to consider all of her
impairments, most notably, her nervousness, anxiety, and
depression, and how they interfere with her gainful-work abilities;
the ALJ’s finding she could perform light work is inconsistent with
the evidence, which demonstrates she cannot meet the requirements
of the noted jobs, dry cleaner and housekeeper; and the ALJ failed
to include all of her limitations in the hypothetical question
given the vocational expert, and thus erred by failing to analyze
the combined effect of all of her impairments.
Additionally, Selvera challenges the competency of the medical
expert at the agency hearing. But, before he testified, she
conceded he was “qualified as a medical expert”.
Based on our review, the ALJ applied the proper legal
standards and substantial evidence supports the benefits-denial.
See Martinez v. Chater, 64 F.3d 172, 173 (5th Cir. 1995); see also
Bowling v. Shalala, 36 F.3d 431, 435-36 (5th Cir. 1994)
(hypothetical questions for vocational expert).
AFFIRMED
- 2 -