Mitchell vs. Apfel (5th Cir. 2000)

Federal Circuits, 5th Cir. (February 03, 2000)

Docket number: 99-30807

Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/mitchell-vs-apfel-19984419
Id. vLex: VLEX-19984419

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. - Edna Kane, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret M. Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee., 731 F.2d 1216 (5th Cir. 1984)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - Larry Mays, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. Bowen, M.D., Secretary, Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee. No. 87-4674. Summary Calendar., 837 F.2d 1362 (5th Cir. 1988)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - Curtis Selders, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee. No. 90-4207. Summary Calendar., 914 F.2d 614 (5th Cir. 1990)

See other documents that cite the same legislation

Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-30807

Summary Calendar

LINDA F. MITCHELL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

(98-CV-1450)

February 3, 2000

Before POLITZ, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:* Plaintiff-Appellant Linda Mitchell appeals from the district court's judgment affirming the denial of her application for supplemental security income. She argues that the district court applied an improper legal standard to conclude that she was not prejudiced by the Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ") refusal to order a consultative mental examination, that the ALJ erred in applying the Medical-Vocational Guidelines because the Guidelines fail to take into account her non-exertional impairments, and that the district court erred in modifying the Commissioner's decision by concluding that she retained the ability to perform the full range of sedentary work and was therefore not entitled to disability benefits.

We have reviewed the record and find that the district court did not err in concluding that Mitchell did not carry her burden of showing that she was prejudiced by the ALJ's failure to order a consultative mental examination. See Kane v. Heckler, 731 F.2d 1216, 1220 (1984). Neither did the ALJ commit a legal error in applying the Guidelines after determining that Mitchell's nonexertional impairments did not significantly affect her residual functional capacity to work. See Selders v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 614 (5th Cir. 1990). Nor did the district court err in modifying the Commissioner's decision by applying a different Guideline to conclude that Mitchell retains the residual functional capacity to perform the full range of sedentary work; and that decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record. See Mays v. Bowen, 837 F.2d 1362, 1364 (5th Cir. 1988).

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.