IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-30670
Summary Calendar
JANET WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JO ANNE B. BARNHART,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
No. 00-CV-830-N
- - - - - - - - - -
January 11, 2002
Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges:
PER CURIAM:*
Janet Williams appeals the district court’s affirmance of the
Commissioner’s decision to deny Williams’s application for social
security disability insurance benefits. Williams argues that
(1) the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) should have considered the
treating physician’s opinion under the six factors set forth in
Newton v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 448, 453 (5th Cir. 2000), and should have
requested supplemental information from the treating physician;
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-30670
-2-
(2) the ALJ did not consider whether Williams could maintain
employment; and (3) the ALJ did not give proper consideration to
the side effects of Williams’s pain medication.
Williams argues that the ALJ failed to give proper
consideration to the opinion of her treating physician, Joseph
Rauchwerk. The ALJ gave a detailed account of Rauchwerk’s
treatment of Williams. The ALJ was not required to give a more
detailed analysis under Newton, because there was medical evidence
from two examining specialists that controverted the opinion of the
treating physician. See Shave v. Apfel, 238 F.3d 592, 595 (5th
Cir. 2001); Newton, 209 F.3d at 453. Williams has not demonstrated
that the ALJ was required to request supplemental information from
the treating physician, because she has not demonstrated that
supplementation would have led to a different decision. See
Newton, 209 F.3d at 458 (holding that reversal appropriate only if
applicant shows prejudice).
Williams argues that the ALJ should have considered not only
her ability to obtain employment, but also her ability to maintain
employment as required by Singletary v. Bowen, 798 F.2d 818, 822
(5th Cir. 1986)(medical evidence demonstrated that claimant suf-
fered from various mental disorders that prevented him from holding
a job). Even if it is presumed that Singletary applies to disabil-
ities other than mental impairments, Williams has not offered medi-
cal evidence that her condition would prevent her from maintaining
employment or functioning in the employment context. See Single-
2
No. 01-30670
-3-
tary, 798 F.2d at 822 (inability to continue working must be sup-
ported by medical evidence).
Williams contends that the ALJ failed to give proper
consideration to the side effects of Williams’s pain medication.
As reflected in the decision denying benefits, the ALJ considered
Williams’s testimony regarding the side effects but found her
subjective complaints to be credible only to the extent reflected
in the residual functional capacity. See Crowley v. Apfel, 197
F.3d 194, 199 (5th Cir. 1999). The ALJ’s credibility determination
is accorded great deference. Harrell v. Bowen, 862 F.2d 471, 480
(5th Cir. 1988). Williams has failed to produce objective medical
evidence to support her subjective complaints regarding the side
effects of her pain medication. See Anthony v. Sullivan, 954 F.2d
289, 296 (5th Cir. 1992); Selders v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 614, 618
(5th Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED.
3