eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2000-09

Mays v. Apfel ( 2000 )


Menu:
 
  •                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-60681
Summary Calendar
DOROTHY A. MAYS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
KENNETH S. APFEL,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:98-CV-210-D-A
--------------------
September 1, 2000
Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Dorothy    A.   Mays   appeals   from   the    district   court’s
judgment affirming the denial of her application for Supplemental
Security Income (SSI).      We affirm.
Mays argues that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred
in   disbelieving    her   testimony    about   her    conditions    and   her
complaints of pain.    The ALJ's decision as to the credibility of a
claimant's limitations and whether her pain was disabling is
entitled to considerable deference.         See       Wren v. Sullivan,
    925 F.2d 123
    , 128 (5th Cir. 1991).         Based on a thorough review of the
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 99-60681
-2-
record, including Mays’ testimony, the ALJ determined that she
retained the ability to perform medium work limited by moderate pain
and moderate depression, both controlled with medication. The record
shows that the ALJ adequately considered the evidence of Mays’
complaints of pain and that the ALJ’s conclusions were supported by
substantial evidence in the record.
Mays also argues that the ALJ erred by relying on the
Medical-Vocational Guidelines (grids) found at 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404,
Subpt. P, App. 2 (1999).       This argument is frivolous.      The ALJ did
not use the grids and found that Mays was capable of performing past
relevant work.      See Harper v. Sullivan,
    887 F.2d 92
    , 97 (5th Cir.
1989) (the grids are applied only when it is found that the claimant
is incapable of performing past relevant work).
May   argues   that    the   Commissioner’s   decision   denying
benefits is not supported by substantial evidence because it is
undisputed that she had a severe, disabling condition. The ALJ found
that her moderate depression and the moderate pain in her arm and
hand were controlled by medication.               A medical impairment that
reasonably can be remedied or controlled by medication is not
disabling.    See Johnson v. Bowen,
    864 F.2d 340
    , 348 (5th Cir. 1988).
Mays failed to meet her burden of showing that she was unable to
return to her past relevant work.
Mays also asserts that this case should be remanded pursuant to
    42 U.S.C. § 405
    (g) for consideration of new evidence which she
contends would have changed the Commissioner’s decision.          She argues
that a July 1998 letter stating her diagnosis and the September 1998
grant of benefits by the Commissioner warrants remand. This evidence
No. 99-60681
-3-
which shows, at best, a deterioration of a previously non-disabling
condition,   does   not   warrant   remand   for   further   administrative
consideration.   See Johnson v. Heckler,
    767 F.2d 180
    , 183 (5th Cir.
1985).
AFFIRMED.