Meredith vs. Apfel (5th Cir. 1999)

Federal Circuits, 5th Cir. (November 05, 1999)

Docket number: 99-50213

Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/meredith-vs-apfel-19984778
Id. vLex: VLEX-19984778

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Request manual translation

Search in this document

Document options

Citations:

Loading article preview... cerrar

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - 49 Soc.Sec.Rep.Ser. 112, Unempl.Ins.Rep. (Cch) P 14847B Travis Ripley, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee., 67 F.3d 552 (5th Cir. 1995)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - 32 Soc.Sec.Rep.Ser. 6, Unempl.Ins.Rep. Cch 15818a Arthur K. Moore, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Secretary, of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee., 919 F.2d 901 (5th Cir. 1990)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - Antonio Fraga, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. Bowen, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee. No. 86-2594. Summary Calendar., 810 F.2d 1296 (5th Cir. 1987)

See other documents that cite the same legislation

Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-50213

Summary Calendar

BOBBIE JO MEREDITH,

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

USDC No. 1:98-CV-458

November 1, 1999

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:* Bobbie Jo Meredith appeals from the magistrate judge's judgment affirming the denial of her application for supplemental security income. She argues that substantial evidence did not exist to support the Commissioner's decision that she could do other work because such decision was not based on a consideration of the combined effect of her impairments. She argues that the ALJ failed to consider the combined effect of her (1) inability to sit or stand for more than four hours per day; (2) her vision problems; and (3) her pain and her necessity to perform various treatments to relieve such pain.

Substantial evidence existed to support the finding that Meredith was not disabled. See Ripley v. Chater, 67 F.3d 552, 555 (5th Cir. 1995); Moore v. Sullivan, 919 F.2d 901, 905 (5th Cir. 1990). The magistrate judge did not fail to consider the combined effect of Meredith's exertional and nonexertional impairments. See Fraga v. Bowen, 810 F.2d 1296, 1305 (5th Cir. 1987).

AFFIRMED.

* 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.