UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 98-21085
Summary Calendar
_____________________
MARTIN CARDENAS,
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
(H-97-CV-3086)
_________________________________________________________________
April 17, 2000
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Martin Cardenas appeals the district court’s judgment
affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of
disability benefits. Cardenas contends that there is no
substantial evidence to support the Commissioner’s decision. Based
on our review of the record, the decision was supported by
substantial evidence and the proper legal standards were used in
evaluating the evidence. See Villa v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d 1019,
1021 (5th Cir. 1990); Ripley v. Chater, 67 F.3d 552, 555 (5th Cir.
1995).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
Cardenas contends that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
erred in discounting his complaints of pain. Contrary to this
assertion, the ALJ considered the factors relevant to complaints of
debilitating pain pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 416.929. There is
substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s finding that Cardenas’
testimony regarding his functional limitations and pain was not
supported by the medical record and was not credible. See Falco v.
Shalala, 27 F.3d 160, 163 (5th Cir. 1994). The evidence also
supports the ALJ’s finding, based on testimony from a vocational
expert, that there were a significant number of jobs which Cardenas
could perform.
Cardenas urges this court to remand this case to the
Commissioner for consideration of an ALJ decision finding that he
is disabled as of 10 March 1996, one day after the ALJ’s
determination that is the subject of this appeal. This court may
remand to the Commissioner for consideration of additional evidence
“upon a showing that there is new evidence which is material and
that there is good cause for the failure to incorporate such
evidence into the record in a prior proceeding.” 42 U.S.C. §
405(g); Latham v. Shalala, 36 F.3d 482, 483 (5th Cir. 1994). No
remand is necessary, because the subsequent determination is not
material to this proceeding.
AFFIRMED
2