United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS May 9, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-30481
Summary Calendar
MALINDA A. NELSON,
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
USDC No. 01-CV-1166-B
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Malinda A. Nelson is appealing the district court’s order
granting the defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s motion
for summary judgment and dismissing her complaint filed pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) challenging the Commissioner’s decision to
deny her Social Security disability benefits.
Nelson argues that the administrative law judge (ALJ) erred
in failing to determine pursuant to Singletary v. Bowen, 798 F.2d
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-30481
-2-
818 (5th Cir. 1986) whether she could maintain employment on a
sustained basis. Because the objective medical evidence showed
that Nelson could obtain employment and she did not assert that
she suffers from a condition that periodically precludes her from
working, the ALJ was not required to make an express finding that
Nelson could maintain a job. See Frank v. Barnhart, F.3d ,
(5th Cir. Mar. 25, 2003, No. 01-30714), 2003 WL 1534379 at *1.
Nelson argues that the ALJ failed to properly consider the
effects of her medication on her ability to work. Nelson did not
present any medical evidence showing that the medication’s side
effects would preclude her from doing any of the listed jobs.
This claim is based solely on Nelson’s testimony concerning the
effects of the medicine.
The ALJ gave consideration to the effects of the medication
but determined that Nelson’s testimony was not credible insofar
as she contended she is totally disabled by her condition and the
medication. The ALJ’s credibility findings are entitled to
deference. Harrell v. Bowen, 862 F.2d 471, 480 (5th Cir. 1988).
Further, the ALJ’s credibility findings are supported by the
substantial objective medical evidence in the record showing that
Nelson does not have a back condition that requires her to take
narcotic pain medication on a daily basis.
Nelson argues that the ALJ failed to give sufficient weight
to the opinion of her treating physician and also failed to
consider the six specific factors to be evaluated prior to
No. 02-30481
-3-
refusing to give controlling weight to the opinion of a treating
physician.
In Newton v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 448, 453 (5th Cir. 2000), this
court held that "absent reliable medical evidence from a treating
or examining physician controverting the claimant’s treating
specialist, an ALJ may reject the opinion of the treating
physician only if the ALJ performs a detailed analysis of the
treating physician’s views under the criteria set forth in 20
C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)." Dr. Waguespack’s examination notes
contained no objective clinical findings with respect to Nelson’s
back problems. Further, Dr. Waguespack’s conclusion that Nelson
was totally disabled was not supported by any of the objective
medical findings in the record and was contradicted by the
opinions of the other physicians who had reviewed the objective
findings. The ALJ was not required to give a more detailed
analysis under Newton because the substantial objective medical
evidence in the record controverted Dr. Waguespack’s conclusional
opinion. See Shave v. Apfel, 238 F.3d 592, 595 (5th Cir. 2001);
Newton, 209 F.3d at 453.
Nelson argues that the ALJ erred in determining that she has
the ability to perform a full range of light work. The only
evidence supporting this argument was Nelson’s testimony that she
was restricted in the amount of time that she can sit and stand
during a work day. However, this testimony was contradicted by
the objective medical evidence and Nelson’s own statements
No. 02-30481
-4-
regarding her ability to engage in activities of daily living.
There was substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s
conclusion that Nelson has the capacity to perform a full range
of light work.
The decision of the district court granting summary judgment
in favor of the Commissioner and dismissing Nelson’s complaint is
AFFIRMED.