IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-10735
Summary Calendar
VIRGINIA M. MURRAY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER
OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:98-CV-495-Y
--------------------
February 29, 2000
Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Virginia M. Murray appeals the Commissioner’s denial of her
application for Supplemental Security Income. The district court
affirmed the Commissioner’s denial.
Murray argues that the Commissioner committed several legal
errors in his denial of her application. Two of these arguments,
that the Commissioner should have recontacted her treating
psychiatrist and that he should have held a supplemental hearing,
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 99-10735
-2-
were not raised during Murray’s administrative appeal to the
Appeals Council. Accordingly, we DISMISS these two issues for
want of jurisdiction. Paul v. Shalala, 29 F.3d 208, 210 (5th
Cir. 1994).
Murray argues that the Commissioner erred by failing to give
controlling weight to the opinion of her treating psychiatrist.
There is little discrepancy between the psychiatrist’s opinion
and the findings made by the Commissioner. However, to the
extent that there is a discrepancy, we note that the Commissioner
is not required to give controlling weight to a treating
physician’s opinion when it is inconsistent with other
substantial evidence in the record. See, e.g., Leggett v.
Chater, 67 F.3d 558, 566 (5th Cir. 1995).
Murray argues that the Commissioner improperly failed to
refer to the medical opinion of a consulting physician. We will
not require the Commissioner to discuss every medical opinion in
the record, especially when the opinion is duplicative of the
opinion of the claimant’s treating physician. See Falco v.
Shalala, 27 F.3d 160, 163 (5th Cir. 1994).
Murray argues that the Commissioner erred in finding that
her testimony of disabling pain was not credible. The
Commissioner may properly reject a claimant’s assertion of
disabling pain, and we owe considerable deference to the
Commissioner’s findings on this issue. Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857
F.2d 275, 278 (5th Cir. 1988). On this record, we will not
disturb the Commissioner’s findings.
No. 99-10735
-3-
Murray argues that there was not substantial evidence in the
record to support the Commissioner’s findings that (i) she could
perform a limited range of sedentary work and (ii) there were
jobs in the national economy that she could perform. Having
reviewed the record, we hold that the record contains substantial
evidence in support of the Commissioner’s findings. See Anthony
v. Sullivan, 954 F.2d 289, 295 (5th Cir. 1992).
DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.