Welsh v. Barnhart , 101 F. App'x 946 ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 7, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-31110
Summary Calendar
SHELMA WELSH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JO ANNE B. BARNHART,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 02-CV-1920
--------------------
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Shelma Welsh appeals the district court’s judgment affirming
the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of her application for
Supplemental Security Income benefits. Welsh argues that the
Commissioner used the wrong legal standard to reject her claim
that her anxiety was disabling. This argument is unavailing.
Our review of the record shows that the Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) who considered Welsh’s application applied the correct
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 03-31110
-2-
standard. See Jones v. Bowen, 829 F.2d 524, 527 n.1 (5th Cir.
1987).
Welsh also argues that the ALJ erred by not ordering a
consultative examination in relation to her alleged mental
impairment. Again, our review of the record belies this
assertion. Welsh’s references to her mental impairment amount to
isolated comments that were insufficient to trigger the ALJ’s
duty to order a consultative examination. See Leggett v. Chater,
67 F.3d 558, 566 (5th Cir. 1995). Moreover, she has failed to
establish any prejudice from this asserted error. See Brock v.
Chater, 84 F.3d 726, 728 (5th Cir. 1996).
Welsh’s argument that the district court erred in concluding
that it could not consider evidence presented to the Appeals
Council likewise lacks merit. We need not decide this novel
issue because the disputed evidence would not change the outcome
of this appeal even if it were considered. See Masterson v.
Barnhart, 309 F.3d 267, 274 n.3 (5th Cir. 2002).
Finally, Welsh’s argument that the ALJ erred by rejecting a
prior classification of her past work lacks merit. Welsh has not
shown that the ALJ who considered her current application for
benefits erred by classifying her prior work as a Pantry Goods
Worker.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.