Guerrero v. Barnhart , 214 F. App'x 485 ( 2007 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F I L E D
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT January 25, 2007
---------------------- Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-10859
Summary Calendar
-----------------------
MARGIE GUERRERO
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
JO ANNE B BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Defendant - Appellee
------------------------------------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo
(No. 2:03-CV-165)
------------------------------------------------
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Margie Guerrero appeals the denial of her claim for Social
Security disability benefits. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM
the judgment of the district court.
Guerrero filed her claim for benefits on November 17, 2000,
alleging that chronic pain caused by, among other things, psoriatic
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
1
arthritis and fibromyalgia prevented her from working. An
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) heard evidence, after which he
issued his decision that although Guerrero suffered from
impairments that caused her pain, she was not disabled within the
meaning of the relevant regulations and retained residual function
capacity sufficient to work as a secretary. The Social Security
Appeals Council rejected Guerrero’s appeal. The district court
adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, finding
that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s decision, and entered
judgment for the commissioner.
Guerrero argues that substantial evidence does not support the
ALJ’s decision. Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as
a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.” Perez v. Barnhart, 415 F.3d 457, 461 (5th Cir. 2005)
(internal quotation and citation omitted). In reviewing for
substantial evidence, we do not weigh the evidence or resolve
conflicts. Masterson v. Barnhart, 309 F.3d 267, 272 (5th Cir.
2002). To find the absence of substantial evidence we must
conclude that there are no credible contrary choices or medical
evidence. Johnson v. Bowen, 864 F.2d 340, 343-44 (5th Cir. 1988).
We find substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s decision.
The ALJ concluded that Guerrero retained residual function capacity
sufficient to continue work as a secretary. In so concluding, the
ALJ rejected Guerrero’s testimony regarding the severity of her
2
pain based on Guerrero’s “manner while testifying at the hearing,
the consistency of her testimony with statements on other occasions
in the record, as well as [her] interest, bias, or prejudice
considered in light of all the evidence in this case.” We accord
an ALJ’s credibility findings substantial deference. James v.
Bowen, 793 F.2d 702, 706 (5th Cir. 1986). With respect to
corroboration of Guerrero’s testimony, the ALJ observed that
although Guerrero asserted drowsiness and lack of concentration as
side effects of her pain medication, Dr. Plata’s May 2, 2002
progress note reflects no side effects of the pain medication and
indicates that “[h]er symptoms seem to be well controlled with the
pain management at this time.” The ALJ also noted the dearth of
evidence in the medical records to support a finding that
Guerrero’s impairment was as severe as she alleged. Dr. Plata’s
progress notes show a consistent level of pain - self-described by
Guerrero as 5 or 6 on a scale of 10 - but one that does not rise to
the level Guerrero asserted when she testified that she spent most
days in bed. The only exception occurred in November 2001 when a
progress note observes that after three days without pain
medication – she ran out – Guerrero rated her pain as 10 out of 10.
Relying on the assessment of the State Agency’s physician, Dr.
Dodd, the ALJ found that Guerrero suffered some functional
limitations, but he concluded that Guerrero’s limitations did not
rise to the level she claimed.
3
Having found substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s
decision, our inquiry is at an end, and the judgment of the
district court is accordingly
AFFIRMED.
4