IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-41119
Summary Calendar
RONALD E. PATTERSON ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
LOTTIE PATTERSON, acting on behalf of
Ronald E. Patterson, deceased; LOTTIE PATTERSON,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
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-95-CV-665
- - - - - - - - - -
September 7, 1999
Before JONES, DUHE’, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lottie Anderson, widow of Ronald E. Patterson, appeals the
district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner’s decision
denying her husband’s request for Disability Insurance Benefits
and Supplemental Security Income pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405. We
review the Commissioner’s decision to determine whether the
decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record and
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 98-41119
-2-
whether the Commissioner applied the proper legal standards in
evaluating the evidence. Ripley v. Chater, 67 F.3d 552, 555 (5th
Cir. 1995).
Patterson makes the following arguments: 1) the
Commissioner’s failure to file all exhibits with the record
violated her due process; 2) the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ)
conclusion that Patterson did not meet the listing of impairments
for diabetes mellitus is not supported by substantial evidence;
3) the ALJ failed to consider whether Patterson’s death was
caused by diabetes mellitus; 4) the ALJ did not properly credit
Patterson’s complaints of disabling pain; 5) the ALJ mistakenly
determined that Patterson was not disabled through the date of
the ALJ’s decision; 6) the ALJ’s finding that Patterson could
perform light duty work is not supported by substantial evidence;
7) the ALJ’s conclusion that Patterson could perform a
significant number of jobs in the national economy is not
supported by substantial evidence.
We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, and we
find that the Commissioner applied proper legal standards and the
decision is supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the
district court’s order is AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED.