UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
for the Fifth Circuit
_____________________________________
No. 95-30035
Summary Calendar
_____________________________________
CAROL BELLOW,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
SHIRLEY S. CHATER,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
______________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(93 CV 2223)
______________________________________________________
August 16, 1995
Before DUHÉ, WIENER, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Carol Bellow appeals the district court's grant of summary
judgment in favor of Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner of Social
Security. Bellow's appeal arises from the denial of her
application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. We
affirm.
BACKGROUND
1
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that
have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on
the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless
expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."
Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion
should not be published.
Bellow is 46 years old, has a ninth grade education, and has
no prior work experience. According to the Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ), Bellows suffers from a severe dysthymic disorder that
does not amount to an affective disorder as listed in 20 C.F.R. pt.
404, subpt. P, app. 1, § 12.04 (1994). The ALJ found that Bellow
had nonexertional limitations of (1) understanding, remembering,
and carrying out complex or detailed job instructions and (2)
functioning independently. On the psychiatric review form attached
to his opinion, the ALJ noted that Bellow had three symptoms
characteristic of depressive syndrome: sleep disturbance,
decreased energy, and difficulty concentrating or thinking. The
three symptoms cause Bellows to have moderate restrictions on daily
living activities and moderate difficulties in maintaining social
functioning.
Because Bellow suffered from nonexertional limitations only,
the ALJ required the testimony of a vocational expert. See 20
C.F.R. § 416.969a(c). At a supplemental hearing, the ALJ asked
several hypothetical questions concerning a person of Bellow's age,
education, and employment experience, to Jeff Peterson, a
vocational expert. First, the ALJ asked Peterson to assume
nonexertional limitations that would preclude jobs requiring
understanding, remembering, or executing involved job instructions,
or requiring one to function independently. Peterson listed a
number of nonaffected jobs including counter clerk, kitchen help,
cashier, and laundry service worker. Peterson stated that
approximately 7500 such jobs existed within Calcasieu, Cameron, and
2
Jeff Davis Parishes. Second, the ALJ asked Peterson what jobs
would exist if the person's residual functional capacity was
further reduced by a moderate reduction in the ability to maintain
attention or concentration. Peterson responded that the additional
limitation would eliminate the counter clerk jobs, but not the
others. Third, the ALJ asked Peterson the result if attention and
concentration were severely impaired. Peterson thought that a
severe impairment in attention and concentration would create
difficulty in all the occupations listed. At this point, Bellow's
attorney examined Peterson.
DISCUSSION
We will uphold a decision to deny SSI benefits if the
administrative decision is supported by substantial evidence in the
record and applies the proper legal standards in evaluating the
evidence. Bowling v. Shalala, 36 F.3d 431, 434 (5th Cir. 1994).
Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance but more than a
scintilla. Id.
When an ALJ uses vocational expert testimony to support his
findings, record evidence must adequately support assumptions made
by the expert. Id. at 436. An ALJ's hypothetical question is
defective unless (1) it incorporates reasonably all disabilities of
the claimant recognized by the ALJ, and (2) the claimant or her
representative is afforded the opportunity to correct deficiencies
in the hypothetical. Id.2 Bellow acknowledges that she had an
2
Our unpublished decision in Monroe v. Shalala, No. 94-41236 (May
5, 1995), is not to the contrary. The ALJ did not recognize the
claimant's pain and swelling so the ALJ's failure to include this
3
opportunity to correct deficiencies in the ALJ's hypotheticals, but
she argues that the questions did not incorporate reasonably all
her disabilities recognized by the ALJ.
Although the first hypothetical incorporated exactly the
findings made by the ALJ, Bellow focuses on the characteristics of
depressive syndrome and their effect on Bellow as noted by the ALJ
on the psychiatric review form. The second hypothetical assumed a
moderate reduction in the ability to maintain attention and
concentration, which is only one of the three characteristics
listed on the psychiatric review form. Nevertheless, the other two
characteristics, sleep disturbance and decreased energy, would not
affect Bellow separately in the workplace; rather, they would
result in a reduction in concentration and attention. Therefore,
the ALJ's second hypothetical incorporated reasonably the
disabilities recognized by the ALJ.3
Bellow also complains about Peterson's testimony concerning
available jobs in three local parishes. She contends that such
jobs must exist in the national economy. Nevertheless, work exists
in the national economy when work exists in the immediate area in
which the claimant lives. 20 C.F.R. § 416.966(a)(1). Peterson's
testimony concerning the jobs available in the three local parishes
symptom in his hypothetical question was not reversible error.
Id., slip op. at 14.
3
Bellow's difficulties in daily living and social functioning are
results of her symptoms; her difficulties are not separate
disabilities.
4
is sufficient to show that Bellow could find work in the national
economy.
Because the vocational expert's testimony is proper and
provides substantial evidence in support of the ALJ's decision, we
conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment
to the Commissioner of Social Security.
AFFIRMED.
5