IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-60334
Summary Calendar
RETHA J. HARRELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER
OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
(4:99-CV-135-LG)
--------------------
December 17, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, AND BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Retha J. Harrell appeals the district
court’s dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) lawsuit seeking review
of the denial of disability benefits and supplemental security
income. Harrell argues that the decision issued by the
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) was contrary to the weight of the
law and evidence and that the ALJ applied the wrong legal standards
in determining that Harrell was not fully credible regarding her
subjective complaints.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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
Our review of the ALJ’s decision “is limited to determining
whether that decision is supported by substantial evidence and
whether the proper legal standards were applied.” Ripley v.
Chater, 67 F.3d 552, 555 (5th Cir. 1995). A finding of no
substantial evidence is appropriate only if no credible evidentiary
choices or medical findings support the decision. Johnson v.
Bowen, 864 F.2d 340, 343-44 (5th Cir. 1988).
The ALJ considered all of the evidence presented at the
administrative hearing as well as all of Harrell’s medical records
and subjective complaints. The ALJ determined that although
Harrell had severe impairments, she was still capable of performing
substantial gainful activity. These findings are supported by
substantial evidence. See Johnson, 864 F.2d at 343-44.
Furthermore, the ALJ has primary responsibility for assessing
the credibility of the claimant’s subjective complaints. See
Harrell v. Bowen, 862 F.2d 471, 480 (5th Cir. 1988). In this
matter, the ALJ properly considered Harrell’s subjective complaints
and determined that the objective medical evidence and her
testimony regarding her daily activities were inconsistent with her
subjective complaints. It was within the ALJ’s discretion to make
such determination. See Griego v. Sullivan, 940 F.2d 942, 945 (5th
Cir. 1991).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
2