IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 99-50934
Summary Calendar
_____________________
ROSEMARY PANTOJA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
KENNETH S. APFEL,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-98-CV-214-HG
_________________________________________________________________
July 13, 2000
Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Rosemary Pantoja appeals the magistrate judge’s final judgment
affirming the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of disability
insurance benefits.1 Pantoja argues (1) that she suffers from a
medical condition equal to an impairment listed in Appendix 1 of
the regulations, (2) that the Commissioner erred in determining
that her subjective complaints of pain were credible only to the
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
1
In the district court, both parties consented to proceedings
before a magistrate judge.
extent that they were compatible with her ability to perform a
limited range of light and sedentary work, (3) that the
Commissioner failed to carry its burden of showing that there are
a significant number of jobs in the national economy that she could
perform gainfully, and (4) that the Commissioner’s decision failed
to list her specific nonexertional work limitations.3
Pantoja’s first argument–-that she suffers from a medical
condition which meets or equals a listed impairment–-is
inadequately briefed and therefore waived. See Yohey v. Collins,
985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). After reviewing Pantoja’s
remaining arguments and the record, we hold that the Commissioner’s
decision is supported by substantial evidence and is based on the
proper legal standards. See Ripley v. Chater, 67 F.3d 552, 555
(5th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, the magistrate judge’s final
judgment is
A F F I R M E D.
3
In her statement of the issue, Pantoja states that the issues
on appeal include “[w]hether the Commissioner properly found that
[she] could perform her past relevant work . . . .” Wisely,
Pantoja does not attempt to brief this issue in the body of her
brief. The statement is flatly contradicted by the record. In
concluding that Pantoja was not disabled, the Commissioner
determined that, although Pantoja could not perform her past
relevant work, she was capable of other substantial gainful
activity.
2