United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS January 31, 2005
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-31055
Summary Calendar
MAXANN C. FINK,
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. 02-CV-2136
--------------------
Consolidated With
No. 04-30121
Summary Calendar
IDA J. ROCHESTER,
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 Louisiana
USDC No. 02-CV-2114
--------------------
No. 03-31055
c/w No. 04-30121
-2-
No. 03-31055
c/w No. 04-30121
-3-
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Maxann C. Fink appeals the district court’s judgment denying
her motion for summary judgment, granting the Commissioner’s
cross-motion for summary judgment, and affirming the
Commissioner’s decision denying her applications for disability
insurance benefits and supplemental security income (SSI)
benefits. Ida J. Rochester appeals the district court’s judgment
affirming the Commissioner’s decision denying Rochester’s
application for SSI benefits. The appeals have been
consolidated. In reviewing the Commissioner’s decisions to deny
benefits, we must determine whether there is substantial evidence
in the record to support the decisions and whether the proper
legal standards were used in evaluating the evidence. Ripley v.
Chater, 67 F.3d 552, 555 (5th Cir. 1995).
Fink argues that the Commissioner violated 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1512(e)(1) and (f) by ordering a consultative examination
(CE) without first recontacting the treating physicians for an
explanation of any perceived discrepancies in the medical
records. Both Fink and Rochester contend that the Commissioner
also violated 20 C.F.R. § 404.1519h by failing to appoint a
treating physician to perform the CE. Fink and Rochester next
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 03-31055
c/w No. 04-30121
-4-
challenge the proceedings at their respective administrative
hearings, arguing that the administrative law judges (ALJs)
violated 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1512(e) and 404.1527(d)(2) by failing
to 1) recontact the treating physicians and 2) consider the
necessary regulatory factors when declining to afford controlling
weight to the treating physicians’ opinions. Rochester also
argues that the ALJ erred by failing to address the written
statement of her sister.
Because Fink and Rochester were afforded the opportunity to
supplement their respective records with additional medical
reports from their treating physicians, we hold that any
procedural errors committed by the Commissioner were harmless and
did not affect Fink’s or Rochester’s substantial rights.
See Morris v. Bowen, 864 F.2d 333, 335 (5th Cir. 1988).
Similarly, Fink’s and Rochester’s reliance upon Newton v. Apfel
for purposes of their alleged ALJ procedural errors is misplaced
since the records for both Fink and Rochester contained “other
medical opinion evidence based on personal examination” in the
form of the CE reports. See 209 F.3d 448, 453 (5th Cir. 2000).
Accordingly, we hold that the ALJs did not commit error when
declining to afford controlling weight to the treating
physicians’ opinions. Finally, we reject Rochester’s argument
regarding the ALJ’s failure to address her sister’s written
statement as conclusional and lacking merit.
No. 03-31055
c/w No. 04-30121
-5-
The records reveal that the ALJs’ decisions to deny benefits
were supported by substantial evidence. See Martinez v. Chater,
64 F.3d 172, 173 (5th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED.