Ducote v. Apfel ( 1998 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-31078
Summary Calendar
CLEVELAND DUCOTE,
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. 95-CV-859
- - - - - - - - - -
August 13, 1998
Before WISDOM, DUHE’, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Cleveland Ducote appeals the district court’s dismissal of
his action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking review of the
denial of his application for a period of disability, disability
insurance benefits, and supplemental security income. Ducote
argues that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred in failing
to find that his spinal compression fracture met one of the
impairments listed in Appendix 1 of the Regulations, specifically
the impairment listed in § 1.05(b)(1). Ducote has not
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 97-31078
-2-
demonstrated that his impairment meets the requirements of that
section. See 20 C.F.R., Subpart P, Appendix 1, Part A
§ 1.05; see also Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990).
Ducote next argues that the ALJ erred in failing to find he
was disabled by chronic back pain. The ALJ determined that
Ducote’s subjective complaints of pain were not borne out by the
medical evidence in the record. See Harper v. Sullivan, 887 F.2d
92, 96 (5th Cir. 1989). The ALJ’s assessment of Ducote’s
subjective complaints of pain is therefore supported by
substantial evidence. See Anthony v. Sullivan, 954 F.2d 289, 292
(5th Cir. 1992). Moreover, the ALJ did not err in relying on
Ducote’s demeanor in assessing the credibility of his complaints
of pain. Villa v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d 1019, 1024 (5th Cir. 1990).
The ALJ likewise did not err in relying exclusively on the
medical-vocational guidelines contained in § 201.24 of Appendix
2, Subpart P, Regulation No. 4 in reaching his decision that
Ducote was not disabled. See Selders v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 614,
618 (5th Cir. 1990). Thus, because the ALJ’s conclusion is
supported by the substantial evidence and resulted from the
application of proper legal standards, the district court’s
decision to deny review and to dismiss Ducote’s complaint is
affirmed. See Bowling v. Shalala, 37 F.3d 431, 434 (5th Cir.
1994).
AFFIRMED.