Rogers Ex Rel. Rogers v. Barnhart , 84 F. App'x 452 ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS January 7, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-30600
Summary Calendar
EMILY ROGERS, on behalf of Catina Rogers,
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 Louisiana
No. 02-CV-1435
--------------------
Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Emily Rogers, on behalf of her minor child, Catina Rogers, ap-
peals a judgment affirming the denial of her claim for supplemental
security income. She argues that the administrative law judge’s
(“ALJ’s”) decision is not supported by substantial evidence because
the medical expert’s opinion was meaningless because of (1) the
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opin-
ion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited cir-
cumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 03-30600
-2-
ALJ’s failure to comply with the Appeals Council’s remand order and
(2) the expert’s failure to consider Catina’s asthma. Rogers also
argues that the ALJ failed fully and fairly to develop the record
regarding Catina’s mental impairment.
Judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision to deny bene-
fits is limited to determining whether that decision is supported
by substantial evidence and whether the proper legal standards are
applied. Ripley v. Chater, 67 F.3d 552, 555 (5th Cir. 1995). If
there is substantial evidence to support the Commissioner’s find-
ings, the findings are conclusive, and the decision must be af-
firmed. Martinez v. Chater, 64 F.3d 172, 173 (5th Cir. 1995).
Our review of the record reveals that the ALJ complied with
the Appeals Council’s order. Additionally, the record shows that
the medical expert did not “factor in” Catina’s asthma, because
there was no recent medical evidence in the record regarding that
condition. Nevertheless, in reaching his decision, the ALJ gave
full consideration to all of Catina’s impairments, including her
asthma. In reaching his decision, the ALJ did not rely solely
on the expert’s report. He also relied on the medical evidence,
evidence supplied by Catina’s school, and testimony from Catina and
her mother. The record contains substantial evidence to support
the ALJ’s conclusion that Catina is not disabled. See id.
According to the record, Catina has (1) a mild mental disabil-
ity; (2) attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder that is con-
trolled by medication; and (3) mild asthma. Rogers asserts that
No. 03-30600
-3-
Catina’s impairments meet the requirements of 20 C.F.R. pt. 404,
subpt. P, app. 1, § 112.05D. To be disabled under that section, a
claimant must have “[a] valid verbal, performance, or full scale IQ
of 60 through 70 and a physical or other mental impairment imposing
an additional and significant limitation of function.”
Catina’s last reported IQ test scores do not fall within the
60 to 70 range. Rogers’ argument that the ALJ should have ordered
additional testing is without merit, because Rogers cannot show
that she was prejudiced by the decision. See Carey v. Apfel, 230
F.3d 131, 142 (5th Cir. 2000). Even assuming that Catina’s scores
fell within the 60 to 70 range, she cannot show that her remaining
impairments impose “an additional and significant limitation of
function.” 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, § 112.05D.
Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.