IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-50764
Summary Calendar
THERESA LOPEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JO ANNE B. BARNHART,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-00-CV-61-SC
--------------------
March 7, 2002
Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Theresa Lopez argues that the Administrative Law Judge’s
(ALJ’s) determination that she is not disabled is not supported
by substantial evidence in the record. Relying on the general
classification of jobs in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles
(DOT), Lopez contends that the vocational expert’s opinion that
there are jobs existing that she is physically capable of
performing was erroneous.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-50764
-2-
The vocational expert listed a number of existing jobs that
the expert opined Lopez was physically capable of performing, but
also acknowledged that some of the jobs within those categories
involved physical activities beyond Lopez’s limitations.
However, the vocational expert further testified that there were
a substantial number of jobs within those categories that Lopez
was physically able to perform. Thus, there was no actual
conflict between the expert’s opinion and the general job
classifications contained in the DOT. See Carey v. Apfel, 230
F.3d 131, 146 (5th Cir. 2000). Further, Lopez’s counsel did not
raise the DOT issue during the hearing and did not cross-examine
the expert on her opinion regarding Lopez’s residual functional
capacity to perform the listed jobs. There is an adequate basis
in the record to support the ALJ’s reliance on the vocational
testimony. Id.
Lopez also argues that the hypothetical presented to the
vocational expert did not encompass or properly portray all of
her disabilities. The hypothetical question presented by the ALJ
to the vocational expert reasonably incorporated all of Lopez’s
disabilities supported by the medical evidence and the testimony
in the record. See Boyd v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 698, 707 (5th Cir.
2001).
Lopez also argues that the ALJ failed to give proper
consideration to her complaints of pain. It is within the ALJ’s
discretion to discredit complaints of pain based on the
complainant’s testimony of her daily activities in combination
with the medical records. See Griego v. Sullivan, 940 F.2d 942,
No. 01-50764
-3-
945 (5th Cir. 1991). The ALJ’s determination that Lopez’s pain
was not debilitating is supported by the objective medical
evidence reflecting that her rheumatoid arthritis condition
remained stable and that her pain was reasonably controlled by
medication. See Johnson v. Bowen, 864 F.2d 340, 348 (5th Cir.
1988). It was also supported by Lopez’s testimony regarding her
ability to perform daily household chores that would have been
precluded by debilitating pain.
The decision of the ALJ is supported by substantial evidence
in the record. The decision of the Commissioner to deny Lopez
disability benefits is AFFIRMED.