IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-50618
Summary Calendar
BENNY OCHOA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
KENNETH S. APFEL,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-94-CV-737
March 23, 1998
Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Benny Ochoa appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social
Security’s denial of supplemental security income (SSI) benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Ochoa
argues that there is no substantial evidence to support the Commissioner’s finding that he can perform
light work. Having reviewed the entire record, we find that the decision was supported by substantial
evidence and the proper legal standards were used in evaluating the evidence. See Villa v. Sullivan,
895 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1990); Ripley v. Chater, 67 F.3d 552, 555 (5th Cir. 1995).
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not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.
The Commissioner’s finding that Ochoa could perform light work was based in part on
Ochoa’s testimony that he could occasionally lift up to 20 pounds and in part on the medical record
which contained nothing showing that Ochoa was physically unable to perform light work. See 20
C.F.R. § 404.1567(b) (definition of light work); Selders v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 614, 618 (5th Cir.
1990).
Ochoa argues that the Commissioner’s decision failed to evaluate his complaints of pain under
the criteria set forth in Social Security Ruling 88-13. See Anderson v. Sullivan, 887 F.2d 630, 633
(5th Cir. 1989). Contrary to his assertions, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) considered these
factors pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 416.929. There is substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s finding
that Ochoa’s testimony regarding his functional limitations and pain was not supported by the medical
record and was not credible. See Falco v. Shalala, 27 F.3d 160, 163 (5th Cir. 1994); Jones v.
Heckler, 702 F.2d 616, 622 (5th Cir. 1983).
Finally, Ochoa has not given any authority for his assertion that a vocational expert is required
when availability of jobs in the national economy is determined by application of the Medical-
Vocational Guidelines, 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P, App. 2, table 2. When nonexertional
impairments do not significantly affect a claimant’s residual functioning capacity, exclusive reliance
on the Guidelines is proper. See Selders, 914 F.2d at 618; Dominick v. Bowen, 816 F.2d 130, 1333
(5th Cir. 1988).
AFFIRMED.
2