IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-11369
Summary Calendar
BRANDY M. THOMAS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LARRY G. MASSANARI,
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:00-CV-18
--------------------
August 16, 2001
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Brandy Michelle Thomas appeals the magistrate judge’s
decision affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial
of her applications for disability insurance benefits and
supplemental security income. Thomas contends that substantial
evidence does not exist to support the Commissioner’s decision
that she did not meet the listing for chronic heart failure with
evidence of ventricular dysfunction. She asserts that 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 00-11369
-2-
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erroneously determined that her
testimony was not credible.
Thomas contends also that substantial evidence does not
exist to support the ALJ’s determination that she could return to
her past work and that the ALJ’s conclusion regarding her ability
to return to her past work resulted from legal error. Thomas
asserts that the ALJ did not evaluate correctly whether her past
work as a cashier constituted substantial gainful activity, did
not consider her inability to work in areas that involved
exposure to microwaves, and did not consider evidence provided by
her former employer.
Thomas’ medical records do not establish that she suffers
from the enumerated conditions in the listing, nor do they
establish Thomas’ “inability to carry on any physical activity,”
which is required by 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, § 4.02A
(2000). The ALJ properly relied on objective medical evidence to
justify his rejection of Thomas’ subjective complaints. See
Falco v. Shalala, 27 F.3d 160, 163 (5th Cir. 1994); see also
Jones v. Bowen, 829 F.2d 524, 527 (5th Cir. 1987).
Thomas does not challenge the ALJ’s determination that her
past work as a drive-in car hop and a set-up dietary cook at a
nursing home constituted substantial gainful activity. Thomas
bore the burden of proving her disability. See Leggett v.
Chater, 67 F.3d 558, 566 (5th Cir. 1995).
The ALJ specified that Thomas’ ability to return to work was
limited by her need to avoid any work that involved direct
exposure to hazards and electromagnetic fields since she has a
No. 00-11369
-3-
pacemaker. Thomas’ record provided no indication that her past
work presented a problem due to exposure to microwaves. Her
record indicated that her pacemaker was operating effectively.
The ALJ was not required to investigate potential problems that
were not indicated by the record and that were not raised by
Thomas. See Leggett, 67 F.3d at 566.
After reviewing the record, we hold that the Commissioner’s
decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the
proper legal standards were used in evaluating the evidence. See
Anthony v. Sullivan, 954 F.2d 289, 292 (5th Cir. 1992).
Accordingly, the Commissioner’s decision denying benefits is
AFFIRMED.