IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-10193
Summary Calendar
MARY R. JOHNSON,
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. 7:98-CV-150-BD
--------------------
September 27, 2000
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Mary R. Johnson appeals the magistrate judge’s judgment
affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision
denying her applications for disability insurance benefits and
Social Security Income. Johnson contends that substantial evidence
does not exist in the record to support the Commissioner’s
decision. Having reviewed the entire record, we find that the
decision was supported by substantial evidence and the proper legal
standards were used in evaluating the evidence. See Anthony v.
Sullivan, 954 F.2d 289, 292 (5th Cir. 1992).
1
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
Johnson contends that substantial evidence does not exist to
support the Commissioner’s determination that she did not meet the
listing for “somatoform disorder.” She asserts that the
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) did not explain the basis for his
finding that a listing had not been met and did not rely on the
opinions of treating and examining physicians.
The ALJ is entitled to determine the credibility of medical
experts and to weigh their opinions accordingly. Scott v. Heckler,
770 F. 2d 482, 485 (5th Cir. 1985). The ALJ may disregard
statements that are brief and conclusional, that are not supported
by medically acceptable clinical laboratory techniques, and that
are otherwise unsupported by the evidence. Greenspan v. Shalala,
38 F.3d 232, 237 (5th Cir. 1994).
At least one examining physician concluded that Johnson did
not meet all the requirements for the listing of somatoform
disorder. The medical expert testified that Johnson did not meet
the listing. The record did not support Johnson’s assertion
concerning her treating physician.
Johnson contends that substantial evidence does not exist to
support the Commissioner’s determination that she can return to her
prior work. Johnson contends that the ALJ’s findings did not
include any limitation as to stress and did not mention the
limitations identified by an examining physician.
If the ALJ finds that a person is capable of performing the
work she has done in the past, “a finding of ‘not disabled’ must be
made.” Villa v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d 1019, 1022 (5th Cir. 1990).
2
The claimant has the burden of proving that she cannot perform her
prior work. See id. at 1023. In determining that a claimant can
perform work, the ALJ may rely on a non-examining physician’s
assessment provided the assessment is based on a careful evaluation
of the medical evidence and does not contradict findings made by an
examining physician. Id. at 1024.
The ALJ relied on the medical expert’s testimony that
discounted an examining physician’s finding that Johnson could not
work. Another examining physician noted that Johnson had moderate
limitations in some areas, but found no marked limitations and did
not conclude that Johnson could not work. Johnson’s examining
physicians noted that Johnson exhibited unrealistic or excessive
responses concerning her social and occupational abilities.
Johnson did not prove that she was unable to return to her previous
work. The ALJ relied on medical expert testimony, which was not
contradictory to medical findings documented in the record. See
Villa, 895 F.2d at 1022. Accordingly, the Commissioner’s decision
denying benefits is AFFIRMED.
3