United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS July 15, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-51391
Summary Calendar
FRANCISCO H. REYES,
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. SA-01-CV-32-NN
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, DEMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Francisco H. Reyes appeals the district court’s judgment
affirming the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of benefits
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Commissioner determined that
Reyes was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security
Act at the fifth step of the disability determination, after
considering the testimony of a vocational expert. Reyes argues
that the Commissioner erred in discounting the opinion of a
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-51391
-2-
treating physician, Dr. Perez-Rodriguez, and erred in relying on
the vocational expert’s testimony because the hypothetical
question posed to the expert did not account for all of his
impairments and there was no finding under Watson v. Barnhart,
288 F.3d 212 (5th Cir. 2002), that Reyes would be able to
maintain employment.
The administrative record reflects that there was good cause
for not according controlling weight to Dr. Perez-Rodriguez’s
opinion, which was brief, conclusional, and inconsistent with the
other substantial evidence in the record. See Greenspan v.
Shalala, 38 F.3d 232, 237 (5th Cir. 1994). The hypothetical
posed to the vocational expert incorporated all of the
impairments and restrictions supported by the record, and the
Commissioner therefore correctly relied upon the expert’s opinion
in determining that Reyes was not disabled. See Bowling v.
Shalala, 36 F.3d 431, 436 (5th Cir. 1994). Reyes identified no
impairments that would prevent him from maintaining employment;
he thus did not establish the factual predicate required
by Watson to necessitate a separate finding on his ability to
maintain employment. See Frank v. Barnhart, 326 F.3d 618, 619-20
(5th Cir. 2003).
AFFIRMED.