IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-41350
Summary Calendar
DAVID V. DOMINGUEZ,
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 Texas
USDC No. L-00-CV-103
--------------------
October 31, 2002
Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
David V. Dominguez appeals the district court's judgment
affirming the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of
Supplemental Security Income benefits. We find that the decision
was supported by substantial evidence and the proper legal
standards were used in evaluating the evidence. See Bowling v.
Shalala, 36 F.3d 431, 434 (5th Cir. 1994); Ripley v. Chater,
67 F.3d 552, 555-56 (5th Cir. 1995).
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-41350
-2-
Dominguez argues that the administrative law judge (ALJ)
erred by concluding that he did not demonstrate that he met the
criteria for a listed mental impairment. Dominguez cited the
psychiatric evaluation by Dr. John N. Enriquez to support his
assertion. Contrary to Dominguez’s assertion, Dr. Enriquez’s
report supports the ALJ’s conclusion.
Dominguez argues that the testimony of a vocational expert
(VE) is invalid because he had been given an incomplete
hypothetical question regarding Dominguez’s limitations. The ALJ
noted correctly Dominguez’s age, education, vision limitations,
and mental limitations. The ALJ did not note any physical
limitations because he rejected Dominguez’s complaints as
incredible. Dominguez has not cited to any evidence to challenge
this conclusion. Accordingly, the hypothetical question
presented by the ALJ to the vocational expert reasonably
incorporated all of Dominguez's disabilities supported by
evidence in the record and recognized by the ALJ. See Morris v.
Bowen, 864 F.2d 333, 336 (5th Cir. 1988).
Dominguez asserts that the ALJ erred in failing to credit
unspecified evidence and in failing to seek evidence from a
medical expert. These assertions are not supported by any
argument citing to evidence in the record. These issues have
been abandoned. FED. R. APP. P. 28 (a)(9); Brinkmann v. Dallas
County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
AFFIRMED.