IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-41167
Summary Calendar
DAVID MCCURRY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER
OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. C-96-CV-538
- - - - - - - - - -
October 21, 1998
Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
David S. McCurry appeals the district court’s judgment for
the Commissioner in his action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for
review of the administrative law judge’s (ALJ) decision denying
his request for Supplemental Social Security Income and
Disability Insurance Benefits. We review the Commissioner's
decision to determine whether the Commissioner applied the proper
legal standards and whether the Commissioner's decision is
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 97-41167
-2-
supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.
Anthony v. Sullivan, 954 F.2d 289, 292 (5th Cir. 1992).
McCurry contends that he met the Appendix 1 listings for a
heart impairment, a respiratory impairment, an endocrine
impairment, a digestive impairment, a musculoskeletal system
impairment, a visual impairment, and a mental impairment.
McCurry asserts that he suffers from disabling pain and that the
ALJ did not consider his complaints of pain in determining that
he was not disabled. McCurry asserts that the ALJ, the medical
expert, and the district court relied on a perceived notion,
which was not supported by the record, that McCurry abused
alcohol and drugs in determining that McCurry was not disabled.
McCurry contends also that the ALJ did not provide reasons for
his treatment of McCurry’s testimony as not credible.
McCurry contends that the Commissioner did not consider his
physical and mental impairments, his complaints of pain, and the
limitations on his activities and abilities in deciding that he
retained the residual function capacity to perform other work.
McCurry contends that the vocational expert did not provide the
specific numbers of jobs available in the economy that McCurry
could perform. Finally, McCurry contends generally that the
Commissioner did not apply the correct legal standards and that
substantial record evidence does not support the Commissioner’s
decision.
We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, and we
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for essentially
No. 97-41167
-3-
the reasons adopted by the district court. See McCurry v.
Callahan, No. C-96-538 (S.D. Tex. Jul. 24, 1997).
AFFIRMED.