IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-60108
Summary Calendar
NORMA A. SMITH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
(4:95-CV-9-L-S)
September 25, 1998
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Norma Smith appeals from a judgment affirming the decision of
the Commissioner of Social Security that denied her claim for
disability insurance and supplemental security benefits. She
argues that the administrative law judge (ALJ) erred in not finding
her subjective complaints of pain credible and also in holding that
she is capable of a reduced range of sedentary work. She further
argues that the ALJ erred in relying on the Medical-Vocational
Guidelines and the testimony of the Vocational Expert in
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
determining that jobs exist in the national economy for individuals
with her limitations.
We find that there exists substantial evidence to support the
ALJ’s findings. Given the evidence of Smith’s daily activities and
her present course of medical treatment, the ALJ was entitled to
find her complaints of debilitating pain overstated. See Ripley v.
Chater, 67 F.3d 552, 556 (5th Cir. 1995). Furthermore, contrary to
Smith’s suggestion, the ALJ did not improperly rely solely on the
“grids” in the Medical Vocational Guidelines in finding that jobs
exist in the national economy for someone of Smith’s limitations.
Rather, the ALJ used the grids only as a framework, premising his
conclusion primarily upon the individualized testimony of the
Vocational Expert. Because (considering the objective medical
evidence in the record) the ALJ was entitled to disbelieve Smith’s
complaints of debilitating pain, see Carrier v. Sullivan, 944 F.2d
243, 247 (5th Cir. 1991), the ALJ was free to disregard the
Vocational Expert’s statement that Smith would be unable to work if
her complaints were true. Accordingly, the decision of the
district court is AFFIRMED.
2