Derise v. McMahon , 222 F. App'x 419 ( 2007 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT March 13, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-31071
Summary Calendar
RONALD A. DERISE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LINDA S. MCMAHON, Acting U.S. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(USDC No. 2:05-cv-01154)
--------------------
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ronald Derise appeals the denial of his claim for Social
Security disability benefits. We affirm for the reasons given by
Magistrate Judge Wilson in his thorough report, as adopted by the
district court.
Our review is limited to determining whether the
Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence and
free of legal error. Jones v. Apfel, 174 F.3d 692, 693 (5th Cir.
1999). Ronald Derise is blind in his right eye and can no longer
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-31071
-2-
work as a truck driver. Relying on a vocational expert, the ALJ
determined that there are a significant number of jobs in the
national economy that he can still perform. Derise urges that the
ALJ improperly relied upon the vocational expert’s testimony
because that testimony was flawed, having failed to list any
specifically available jobs as required by SSR 85-15. Yet Derise
does not explain how this procedural impropriety casts doubt on the
existence of substantial evidence or otherwise effects his
substantial rights.
“Procedural perfection in administrative proceedings is not
required. This court will not vacate a judgment unless the
substantial rights of a party have been affected.” Mays v. Bowen,
837 F.2d 1362, 1364 (5th Cir.1988). Such procedural improprieties
“constitute a basis for remand only if such improprieties would
cast into doubt the existence of substantial evidence to support
the ALJ's decision.” Morris v. Bowen, 864 F.2d 333, 335 (5th Cir.
1988). Derise has not cast doubt upon the ALJ’s decision. The
judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.