Meredith v. Barnhart ( 2002 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-50895
Summary Calendar
MARGARET A. MEREDITH,
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 Texas
USDC No. A-99-CV-536-SS
- - - - - - - - - -
April 22, 2002
Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Margaret A. Meredith appeals the district court’s affirmance
of the Social Security Commissioner’s decision to deny her
disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income
under the Social Security Act.
Meredith contends that the Commissioner’s decision was not
supported by “substantial evidence,” in that the Administrative Law
Judge (“ALJ”) failed to consider that impairments to her feet,
knees, hips, and shoulders precluded her from performing the “full
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-50895
-2-
range of light work.” She also contends that the ALJ erred in
determining that she did not have an impairment or combination of
impairments that met or equaled any of the Commissioner’s listings
of impairments at 20 C.F.R., App. 1, Subpt. P, Regulations No. 4.
We review the ALJ’s decision to deny benefits by determining (1)
whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standards and (2) whether
his decision is supported by substantial evidence. Greenspan v.
Shalala, 38 F.3d 232, 236 (5th Cir. 1994).
Meredith’s contention that she could not perform light work,
because of impairments to her feet, knees, and hips, was not
supported by “medically acceptable clinical laboratory diagnostic
techniques.” See Greenspan, 38 F.3d at 237. The same is true of
her claim that she met one of the impairment listings in the
Commissioner’s regulations. See id. No examining physician
explicitly stated that Meredith’s exertional limitations were such
that she could not perform “light” work. See 20 C.F.R. §
404.1567(b). Although her treating physician, internist Dr. Hans
Haydon, indicated that she met one of the impairment listings, the
X-ray evidence to which Dr. Haydon referred purportedly included
only negative findings or showed only “minor” or “minimal”
degenerative changes in her joints.
AFFIRMED.