IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
______________________
No. 98-60126
Summary Calendar
_______________________
JUATASSA SIMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
KENNETH S. APFEL,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
_________________________________________________
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES
August 15, 2000
Before POLITZ, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Juatassa Sims appeals the district court’s affirmance of the Commissioner’s
denial of her application for disability insurance benefits, contending that the
administrative law judge: (1) failed to afford proper weight to a psychologist’s
opinion that she was severely depressed; (2) improperly excluded certain of her
impairments in assessing her residual function capacity; and (3) erred in failing to
order a consultative examination. In an earlier opinion,1 we rejected the first claim
on the merits, concluding that the ALJ’s credibility determinations in that regard
were entitled to deference.2 We also held that because Sims failed to raise the
second and third claims before the Social Security Appeals Council, we lacked
jurisdiction to consider them under our then controlling precedent of Paul v.
Shalala.3 The Supreme Court granted certiorari, held that it was inappropriate to
mandate the exhaustion of issues before the Social Security Administration, and
remanded to us for further proceedings.4
The Supreme Court’s directive does not affect our prior disposition of Sims’
first claim and on reexamination it is reinstated. However, because our earlier
opinion resolved her second and third claims on the basis of issue exhaustion,
consideration of the merits of same is in order. Our review of the Secretary’s
1
Sims v. Apfel, 162 F.3d 1160 (5th Cir. 1998) (table).
2
Greenspan v. Shalala, 38 F.3d 232 (5th Cir. 1994).
3
29 F.3d 208 (5th Cir. 1994).
4
Sims v. Apfel, 120 S.Ct. 2080 (2000).
2
denial of disability benefits “is limited to determining whether the decision is
supported by substantial evidence in the record and whether the proper legal
standards were used in evaluating the evidence.” 5
Sims’ second contention is that although the ALJ found that her carpal tunnel
syndrome resulted in an inability to perform her past work, he failed to find that it
resulted in her inability to perform the jobs cited by the vocational expert, all of
which required frequent reaching, handling, or fingering. It is clear from the record
that the ALJ found that Sims was capable of performing a reduced range of light
work. A vocational expert testified that Sims’ former jobs involved medium work
and identified a number of jobs involving light work Sims would be able to
perform. We find and conclude that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s
finding that Sims’ physical impairments, including the claimed carpal tunnel
syndrome, were severe enough to prevent her from performing medium work but
did not adversely impact the performance of limited light work. Sims maintains
that the ALJ failed to account for her borderline intellectual capacity and
somatoform disorder in determining her residual function capacity. The record
reflects that the ALJ quizzed the vocational expert about the availability of jobs for
5
Villa v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d 1019 (5th Cir. 1990).
3
a person capable of performing light work who had a mild to moderate difficulty
with concentration and attention due to pain, and moderate difficulty functioning
due to depression. We are persuaded that this question was sufficient to
“incorporate reasonably all disabilities by the claimant.”6 We find no merit in this
assigned error.
Sims finally contends that the ALJ should have ordered a consultative
examination to develop a full and fair record of her psychological condition. It is
readily apparent that the record contains sufficient medical and non-medical
evidence upon which to base a determination of the severity of Sims’ mental
problems. The decision by the ALJ not to order a further consultative exam was
within his discretion and we find no abuse thereof.7 This issue likewise lacks merit.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is in all respects AFFIRMED.
6
Bowling v. Shalala, 36 F.3d 431 (5th Cir. 1994).
7
Haywood v. Sullivan, 888 F.2d 1463 (5th Cir. 1989).
4