Case: 20-40804 Document: 00515947515 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/22/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 22, 2021
No. 20-40804
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Wendy Renee Venglar,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social
Security,
Defendant—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:20-CV-20
Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Wendy Venglar filed a claim for Social Security disability benefits. An
ALJ rejected the claim, concluding that although Venglar had some severe
mental health impairments, she was not disabled because Venglar could
perform unskilled jobs. After the Appeals Council denied Venglar’s request
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-40804 Document: 00515947515 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/22/2021
No. 20-40804
for review, she challenged the agency’s ruling in federal court. The district
court, adopting the recommendation of a magistrate judge, granted summary
judgment to the agency. It held that substantial evidence supported the
ALJ’s conclusions.
We agree that substantial evidence supports the rejection of Venglar’s
disability claim. Medical records do not reveal severe mental impairments
and support the ALJ’s conclusion that medication was helpful in controlling
symptoms. No medical professional or other expert testified that Venglar
had any work restrictions. On the other hand, state agency medical
consultants opined that Venglar had fewer limitations than the ALJ
found. The ALJ also cited Venglar’s ability to perform daily tasks—such as
cooking, caring for her son, and handling her finances—as support for her
ability to engage in certain work. Medical records, opinion evidence, and
Venglar’s reported activities thus all support the ALJ’s findings. Especially
given the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, that is much more
than substantial evidence review requires.
Venglar also seems to argue that the district court failed to consider
her objections to the magistrate’s recommendation. That is not true as the
district court noted both the “Final Appeal and Objection” Venglar filed and
the “Objection to Memorandum and Recommendation.” The court
addressed the latter in an order denying reconsideration. The district court
thus considered all of Venglar’s objections.
The bigger point, however, is that we review the ALJ’s denial of
benefits de novo, meaning we review the ALJ’s decision without deferring to
the district court’s view. See Randall v. Astrue, 570 F.3d 651, 663 (5th Cir.
2009). Having taken that new look at the ALJ’s decision, we find no basis for
disturbing its detailed findings for the reasons we have noted.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2