Lee v. Barnhart , 79 F. App'x 682 ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT November 3, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-30341
Summary Calendar
ARNOLD E. LEE,
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-2137
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Arnold E. Lee appeals the district court’s judgment
affirming the Commissioner’s decision to deny his applications
for disability benefits and supplemental security income. Lee
argues that the district court erred in light of the
administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) failure to observe, upon
remand, the specific directive from the Appeals Council to obtain
evidence from a vocational expert to determine whether he had
transferable skills, and the ALJ’s alleged dismissal 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-30341
-2-
opinion of his treating orthopedic surgeon in favor of the
opinions of other physicians less familiar with his case.
The ALJ found, based on the evidence presented, that
vocational evidence was not warranted. Specifically, she noted
there was no need to consult a vocational expert because direct
application of a medical-vocational rule was possible. Given the
ALJ’s finding that any alleged nonexertional limitations
resulting from pain were insufficient to significantly affect
Lee’s residual functional capacity to perform medium work, the
use of the guidelines was appropriate. See Fraga v. Bowen, 810
F.2d 1296, 1304 (5th Cir. 1987).
The objective evidence in the record supports the ALJ’s
decision that Lee can perform medium work and that the use of a
vocational expert was therefore not required. None of the three
orthopaedic surgeons who saw Lee were of the opinion that there
was no work he could perform. All three opined that he could
perform some type of work, and the consensus was that he could
lift 35 pounds but should not bend or twist. The ALJ’s
conclusion that Lee could perform medium work is consistent with
these findings.
Lee argues that the ALJ erred in failing to observe the
opinion of Dr. Brown, his treating orthopaedic surgeon and that
the ALJ’s decision is supported only by her interpretation of one
orthopedic visit to Dr. Spohn for an evaluation. This assertion
is not supported by the record. As already noted, the opinions
No. 03-30341
-3-
of the three surgeons were not significantly different. None of
them expressed the opinion that Lee could not work at all.
Because substantial evidence of record supports the ALJ’s
decision to deny benefits, the district court’s decision is
hereby affirmed. See Villa v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th
Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED.