Williams v. Social Security Adm , 70 F. App'x 183 ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
July 9, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-31165
Summary Calendar
NAOMI R. WILLIAMS,
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
USDC No. 01-CV-1042
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Naomi R. Williams appeals the district court’s judgment that
affirmed the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
denying disability benefits. 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
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-31165
-2-
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. The record shows that the ALJ applied the
proper legal standards and that the Commissioner’s decision is
supported by substantial evidence. Anthony, 954 F.2d at 292.
Williams argues that the Commissioner failed to consider her
obesity when she determined that Williams could perform her past
relevant work. Because obesity was one of Williams’s asserted
claims for disability and because the Commissioner found that
Williams had a combination of impairments considered “severe”,
Williams’s argument is unavailing. Loza v. Apfel, 219 F.3d 378,
393 (5th Cir. 2000) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1523).
She also argues that the Commissioner erred by failing to
conduct a function-by-function analysis in light of all
Williams’s impairments. Although the Commissioner did not
consider each function of Williams’s past work, there was no
conflicting evidence and substantial evidence supported the
Commissioner’s finding. Myers v. Apfel, 238 F.3d 617, 620 (5th
Cir. 2001); see also Mays v. Bowen, 837 F.2d 1362, 1364 (5th Cir.
1988).
AFFIRMED.