Williams vs. Apfel (5th Cir. 2000)

Federal Circuits, 5th Cir. (October 10, 2000)

Docket number: 00-30115

Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/williams-vs-apfel-18420182
Id. vLex: VLEX-18420182

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. 118, Unempl.Ins.Rep. (Cch) P 14848B Don E. Leggett, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shirley E. Chater, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee., 67 F.3d 558 (5th Cir. 1995)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - Lea Pierre, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee. No. 88-3922. Summary Calendar., 884 F.2d 799 (5th Cir. 1989)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - Manuel M. Villa, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis W. Sullivan, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee. No. 89-1721 Summary Calendar., 895 F.2d 1019 (5th Cir. 1990)

See other documents that cite the same legislation

Text:

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .

R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-30115 Summary Calendar SHELBY WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 98-CV-2119 October 6, 2000 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges: PER CURIAM: * Shelby Williams appeals from the district courtÂ’s denial of his petition seeking review of the Commissioner of Socia l SecurityÂ’s decision denying supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits. He contends that the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") erred by determining that he has the residual functional capacity to perform his past relevant work as a welder/pipefitter and erred by failing to order a further consultative mental examination to more fully develop the record on the effect his intermittent explosive disorder has on his ability to work.

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ's determination that Williams retained the residua l functional capacity to perform a wide range of medium work and in particular to perform the physical and mental demands of his past relevant work. S ee Leggett v. Chater , 67 F.3d 558, 564-65 (5th Cir. 1995). Since the ALJ's determination was based on Williams's description of his past work as he actually performed it, the testimony of a vocational expert was unnecessary. See Villa v. Sullivan , 895 F.2d 1019, 1022 (5th Cir. 1990). Even if Williams's past work was a "composite job" having significant elements of sedentary, light, and medium work, the available documentation was sufficient to determine how his job was usually performed, and it was therefore unnecessary to obtain expert vocational testimony. See Social Security Ruling 82-61 (1982).

Williams has not shown that an additional consultative mental examination was necessary or that the ALJ abused her discretion in denying his request for an examination. S ee Pierre v. Sullivan , 884 F.2d 799, 802 (5th Cir. 1989).

Because the ALJÂ’s conclusion that Williams was not disabled is supported by substantial evidence and resulted from the application of p ro per legal standards, the district courtÂ’s judgment denying Williams's petition is AFFIRMED.