Wittner v. Barnhart ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
June 12, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-21315
Summary Calendar
LAURA B. WITTNER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JO ANNE B. BARNHART,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(H-01-CV-2746)
--------------------
Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Laura B. Wittner, pro se, appeals the
district court’s judgment that affirmed the decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying disability
benefits. In her unusually able pro se brief, Wittner contends on
appeal that the record evidence does not support the decision of
the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). Wittner asserts that the
hearing testimony and medical records establish that she is
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
disabled, arguing that hypertension and pain are sufficiently
disabling conditions and that she meets the listing for
hypertension.
Our review is limited to determining whether the Commissioner
applied the proper legal standards and whether the decision is
supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.
Anthony v. Sullivan, 954 F.2d 289, 292 (5th Cir. 1992).
Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Villa v.
Sullivan, 895 F.2d 1019, 1021-22 (5th Cir. 1990). We may not
reweigh the evidence or try the issues de novo. Id. at 1022.
Wittner bears the burden of proving her disability by
establishing an impairment. See Wren v. Sullivan, 925 F.2d 123,
128 (5th Cir. 1991). Subjective complaints require corroboration
by objective medical evidence. Houston v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d 1012,
1016 (5th Cir. 1989). The disabling nature of pain is an issue for
the ALJ to decide, and the ALJ’s determination is entitled to
considerable deference. Chambliss v. Massanari, 269 F.3d 520, 522
(5th Cir. 2001).
The instant record is devoid of evidence that Wittner suffered
from a disabling condition during the period of her insured status.
See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). Wittner does not establish that she
satisfied the requirements for a listed impairment, and the record
contains no evidence that Wittner met the listing for hypertension.
See 20 C.F.R. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 4.00A, § 4.00E2. The ALJ
2
applied the proper legal standards, and the Commissioner’s decision
is supported by substantial evidence. Anthony, 954 F.2d at 292.
The ALJ concluded that Wittner was not disabled at Step Two of
the analysis. This conclusion terminated the analysis, and the ALJ
was not required to evaluate Wittner’s ability to work. Muse v.
Sullivan, 925 F.2d 785, 789 (5th Cir. 1991); Crouchet v. Sullivan,
885 F.2d 202, 204, 206 (5th Cir. 1989).
Undeterred, Wittner contends that the ALJ demonstrated a
predisposition to rule against her, stating before the hearing was
complete that he would find it difficult to rule in her favor.
Wittner insists that the ALJ violated her right to due process and
held her to an improper standard by requiring additional record
evidence. She also asserts that she was denied the right to
counsel. These contentions are belied by the record.
The record shows that the ALJ explained the burden of proof
that, as the claimant, Wittner was required to bear if she was to
show entitlement to disability benefits. Wittner failed to produce
objective medical evidence for the period during which she was
insured, as required to substantiate her disability claims.
Wittner was sufficiently informed of her right to an attorney,
after which she validly consented to proceed without
representation. See Castillo v. Barnhart, 325 F.3d 550, 552 (5th
Cir. 2003). Furthermore, Wittner has failed to identify any
evidence that an attorney might have adduced that would have been
sufficient to change the result. See id.3
The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
S:\OPINIONS\UNPUB\02\02-21315.0.wpd
4/29/04 1:08 pm
4