IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-30352
Summary Calendar
KENNETH W. GOODMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LARRY G. MASSANARI, ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
_____________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 99-CV-2366
_____________________________________________
October 11, 2001
Before POLITZ, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
Kenneth Goodman appeals the district court’s affirmance of the denial of his
application for disability insurance benefits. He maintains that the Administrative
Law Judge: (1) did not fully and fairly develop the record; (2) posed a hypothetical
question to the vocational expert that was defective; (3) erred in finding that his
work experience allowed him to perform semi-skilled work; and (4) improperly
relied on the vocational expert’s testimony that he could perform the listed
occupations provided that a sit/stand option was permitted. He also contends that
the Appeals Council should have remanded the case based on post-hearing evidence
that he submitted.
Goodman’s contention that the ALJ did not fully and fairly develop the record
lacks merit. He was not prejudiced by the ALJ’s finding that he had a good ability
to demonstrate reliability.1 Further, the ALJ was not obliged to order additional
consultative examinations.2
The contention that the ALJ’s hypothetical question to the vocational expert
was defective likewise lacks merit. The hypothetical question posed to the
vocational expert by the ALJ reasonably incorporates all disabilities of the claimant
1
Carey v. Apfel, 230 F.3d 131 (5th Cir. 2000).
2
Pierre v. Sullivan, 884 F.2d 799 (5th Cir. 1989).
2
recognized by the ALJ. Goodman and his representative were afforded an adequate
opportunity to correct any real or asserted deficiencies in the ALJ’s question. 3
The next contention, that the ALJ erred in finding that Goodman’s work
experience allowed him to perform semi-skilled work, also lacks merit. The record
reflects that the ALJ expressly relied on vocational expert testimony for his ruling
that Goodman was capable of making an adjustment to work which existed in
significant numbers in the national economy. The ALJ did not rely merely on
Medical-Vocational Guideline 202.21.4
Goodman’s further contention that the ALJ improperly relied on the
vocational expert’s testimony that he could perform the listed occupations provided
that a sit/stand option was permitted, as were the other contentions, also lacks
merit. The ALJ did not find that Goodman required a sit/stand option.
Finally, Goodman’s contention that the Appeals Council should have
remanded the case based on post-hearing evidence is devoid of merit. There is no
basis for the claim that the alleged “new evidence” related to the period on or before
the date of the ALJ hearing decision.5
3
Bowling v. Shalala, 36 F.3d 431 (5th Cir. 1994).
4
Carey, 230 F.3d at 147.
5
20 C.F.R. § 404.970(b).
3
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
4