IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-50172
Summary Calendar
SUZANNE M. FLUD
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SHIRLEY S. CHATER,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-94-CV-1078
September 12, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER AND BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Suzanne Flud appeals the district court’s decision affirming
the Commissioner of Social Security’s determination that Flud was
not entitled to disability insurance benefits. She argues that the
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) failed to consider adequately her
subjective complaints of pain and the debilitating side-effects of
her medication, and failed to explain in sufficient detail why he
1
Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
did not find her allegations of pain to be credible. Our review of
the record reveals that the ALJ made an explicit finding regarding
Flud’s subjective complaints of pain, and explained that finding in
the context of his ruling (“claimant’s complaints of pain are found
credible to the extent she could not perform a light, medium, or
heavy work”). The ALJ found the medical evidence more persuasive
than Flud’s testimony in deciding that Flud was capable of
sedentary work, which is precisely the kind of determination that
the ALJ is best positioned to make. See Falco v. Shalala, 27 F.3d
160, 163-64 (5th Cir. 1994). Despite appellant’s assertions to the
contrary, our review reveals substantial evidence in the record to
support the ALJ’s finding.
Flud also asserts that the ALJ should have ordered a
consultative exam. As the record does not establish that such an
examination was necessary for the ALJ to make his disability
decision, the ALJ did not have to order such an exam. See Jones v.
Bowen, 829 F.2d 524, 526 (5th Cir. 1994).
Because substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s
decision, the district court’s decision is AFFIRMED.
2