United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS December 28, 2005
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-30764
Summary Calendar
TERRY D. HADLEY,
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. 2:03-cv-1890)
_________________________________________________________
Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*1
*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not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in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.
Terry D. Hadley appeals the district court’s decision affirming the Commissioner’s
denial of social security disability benefits. We affirm for the following reasons:
1. We agree with the analysis offered in the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation and the district court’s order accepting the magistrate’s
recommendation.
2. We further find that the ALJ’s decision comports with the legal standards for
disability determination under the Social Security Act and relevant regulations.
See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f).
3. Hadley argues that the ALJ erred by relying exclusively on the Medical-
Vocational Guidelines in finding that he was not under a disability and retains the
residual functional capacity for the demands of sedentary work. Use of the
Medical-Vocational Guidelines is appropriate when it is established that a
claimant suffers only from exertional impairments, or that the claimant’s
nonexertional impairments do not significantly affect his residual functional
capacity. Loza v. Apfel, 219 F.3d 378, 398 (5th Cir. 2000). Hadley maintains that
his nonexertional limitations keep him from performing the full range of
sedentary work. Hadley places strong emphasis on the medical opinion of Dr.
Ayer, who concluded that Hadley would be unable to walk, crawl, or exert
himself to any significant degree. Dr. Ayer did not define or otherwise explain
his diagnosis. By contrast, Dr. Keairnes made a detailed diagnosis that in an
eight hour workday, Hadley could stand and/or walk for two hours and sit for six
hours with normal breaks. An ALJ is entitled to determine the credibility of
medical experts and weigh their opinions accordingly. Greenspan v. Shalala, 38
F.3d 232, 237 (5th Cir. 1994). In addition to Dr. Keairnes’s relatively more
optimistic diagnosis, the ALJ noted Hadley’s clear lungs, high oxygen saturation
rates, and the fact that Hadley’s chronic pulmonary disease has been brought
under control.
4. Based on the objective medical data, there is substantial evidence supporting
the ALJ’s finding that Hadley has the exertional capacity for sedentary work and
does not have non-exertional limitations that would significantly limit his ability
to perform.
Affirmed.