UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 95-30346
Summary Calendar
ANITA GUILLORY, on behalf of Chastity Guillory
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-1419)
(October 16, 1995)
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied Appellant Guillory’s
claim on behalf of her minor daughter for supplemental security
income benefits. Upon review, the district court granted summary
judgment in favor of the Commissioner. Guillory appeals. We
affirm.
Appellant argues that the ALJ and the district court applied
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Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published.
the incorrect legal standard and that their decision is not
supported by substantial evidence. Our careful review of the
record convinces that Appellant errs in both respects.
The legal standard for determining whether a child is disabled
requires a determination whether the child: 1) was engaged in
substantial gainful activity, 2) had a severe impairment, 3) had an
impairment that met or equaled an impairment listed in appendix 1
of 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, and 4) had an impairment of comparable
severity to an impairment that would disable an adult. Sec.
416.924(b). At the fourth step, an Individualized Functional
Assessment is performed to determine whether the child’s impairment
limits her ability to physically or mentally function in an age-
appropriate manner. Sec. 416.924(f). The ALJ carried out these
steps with precision. He found the child was never employed, had
a severe impairment, did not meet the conditions of Secs. 112.05 or
112.11 or equivalent, made an individualized assessment of her
ability to function in the five specified domains and concluded
that she experienced a more than moderate impairment only in the
cognitive function area and thus was not disabled. The proper
legal standard was applied.
Evidence is sufficient to support this finding if it is
substantial, that is more than a scintilla. Anderson v. Sullivan,
887 F.2d 630, 633 (5th Cir. 1989). Our review of the record
demonstrates more than ample evidence.
AFFIRMED.
2