UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 98-30755
Summary Calendar
BEN CHARLES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC 97-CV-1406
April 14, 1999
Before WISDOM, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The plaintiff-appellant, Ben Charles, appeals the district court’s judgment that the
Commissioner of Social Security properly denied his claim for disability and supplemental security
income benefits. Charles first applied for these benefits in February 1991, on the basis that he
became disabled in June 1986 as a result of an injury to his right hand. On appeal, Charles argues
that the (1) administrative law judge (ALJ) assigned to this case did not afford proper weight to a
psychologist’s opinions regarding his mental status; (2) ALJ denied him due process of law by
failing to issue a subpoena compelling the presence of the Commissioner’s consulting
psychologist; (3) ALJ improperly expunged the consulting psychologist’s report from the record;
*
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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
(4) ALJ’s step 5 hypothetical questions to the vocational expert were defective; (5) vocational
expert’s step 4 responses to the ALJ’s step 5 questions were defective; and (6) ALJ’s introduction
of Charles’s vocational factors into the hypothetical questions posed to the vocational expert
propelled the sequential evaluation process into step 5, thereby requiring alternative or “other”
work testimony from the vocational expert to carry the Commissioner’s step 5 burden. Charles
further argues that the Commissioner’s finding that he could perform his past relevant work was
not supported by substantial evidence in the record.
We limit our review of a denial of disability benefits to two inquiries: (1) whether the
Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record; and (2) whether the
Commissioner applied the proper legal standards in evaluating the evidence.1 Although we review
the entire record, we do not reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for the judgment of
the Commissioner.2
We have reviewed the record and the briefs filed by the parties, and find no error in the
judgment of the district court. We agree with the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation,
which was adopted by the district court, that the Commissioner’s decision is supported by
substantial evidence in the record and is consistent with relevant legal standards.3 Accordingly,
we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
1
Anthony v. Sullivan, 954 F.2d 289, 292 (5th Cir. 1992).
2
Villa v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d 1019, 1022 (5th Cir. 1990).
3
See Charles v. Apfel, No. 97-CV-1406 (W.D. La. May 27, 1998).
2