IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-11261
Summary Calendar
JANICE J. JONES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER
OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:00-CV-217-R
--------------------
April 18, 2002
Before GARWOOD, BARKSDALE and DEMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Janice J. Jones appeals the district court’s decision
affirming the determination by the Commissioner of Social
Security that she is not disabled within the meaning of the
Social Security Act. Jones argues that the Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ) failed to state his specific findings concerning her
impairments and that it is impossible for the court to review
whether the ALJ considered the combined effect of her
impairments. The ALJ expressly found that Jones suffered from
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-11261
-2-
major depression, lupus arthralgia, and possibly systemic lupus
erythematosus. The ALJ also implicitly found that Jones suffered
from asthma and migraine headaches as he found her residual
functional capacity was limited by the need to avoid concentrated
exposure to pulmonary irritants. Although the ALJ did not
expressly state his findings concerning which impairments Jones
had, the ALJ considered all of the medical evidence and Jones’
testimony and determined that she “suffer[ed] from a combination
of impairments which cause more than a slight abnormality on her
ability to perform basic work activities.” The ALJ also found
that Jones did not have an impairment or combination of
impairments of such severity to meet or equal any impairment
listed in Appendix 1, Subpart P, Regulation No. 4. Jones has not
shown that the ALJ’s failure to identify specifically her
impairments affected her substantial rights. See Anderson v.
Sullivan, 887 F.2d 630, 634 (5th Cir. 1989). Further, the ALJ
applied the correct legal standard in determining whether Jones
was disabled. See Villa v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th
Cir. 1990).
Jones argues that the ALJ did not provide sufficient reasons
for rejecting her subjective complaints. The ALJ found that
Jones’ “testimony was credible to the extent consistent with her
residual functional capacity.” The ALJ determined that the
objective medical evidence and Jones’ testimony concerning her
daily activities were inconsistent with her claim that pain and
fatigue prevented her from performing her past relevant work.
The ALJ provided sufficient reasons for his credibility
No. 01-11261
-3-
determination and assessment of the evidence. See Falco v.
Shalala, 27 F.3d 160, 163 (5th Cir. 1994). The ALJ’s evaluation
of the credibility of Jones’ subjective complaints is entitled to
judicial deference because it is supported by substantial
evidence. See Villa, 895 F.2d at 1024; see also Newton v. Apfel,
209 F.3d 448, 459 (5th Cir. 2000).
AFFIRMED.