Case: 21-10751 Document: 00516525125 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/27/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 21-10751
Summary Calendar
FILED
October 27, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce
Stephen G. Finley, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social
Security,
Defendant—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:20-CV-49
Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
The district court affirmed an Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ’s”)
decision denying Plaintiff-Appellant Stephen G. Finley disability benefits for
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-10751 Document: 00516525125 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/27/2022
No. 21-10751
a three-year period between July 1, 2005 and December 31, 2008. 1 Finley
timely appealed. We affirm.
We review “a Commissioner’s denial of social security disability
benefits ‘only to ascertain whether (1) the final decision is supported by
substantial evidence and (2) whether the Commissioner used the proper legal
standards to evaluate the evidence.’” Webster v. Kijazaki, 19 F.4th 715, 718
(5th Cir. 2021) (quoting Keel v. Saul, 986 F.3d 551, 555 (5th Cir. 2021)).
“Substantial evidence is merely enough that a reasonable mind could arrive
at the same decision; though the evidence ‘must be more than a scintilla, it
need not be a preponderance.’” Id. (quoting Taylor v. Astrue, 706 F.3d 600,
602 (5th Cir. 2012)) (cleaned up).
The ALJ determined that, prior to the expiration of his insured status,
Finley had a number of conditions defined as “severe” by the relevant
regulations. The ALJ nonetheless concluded that Finley was not under a
“disability,” as defined by the relevant regulations, because he retained the
residual functional capacity to perform light work with some restrictions, and
“a significant number of jobs existed in the national economy that he could
perform.” These conclusions, contrary to Finley’s assertions, are supported
by the testimony of two vocational experts and a medical expert.
Neither can we say that the ALJ erred by assigning little weight to the
opinion of Dr. George, Finley’s treating physician. Dr. George’s opinion was
based on an MRI completed more than half a decade after Finley’s insured
status expired. Retrospective medical opinions are acceptable evidence, but
they must be properly corroborated. See, e.g., Luckey v. Astrue, 458 F. App’x
322, 325–26 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam). The ALJ did not err in concluding
1
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge.
2
Case: 21-10751 Document: 00516525125 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/27/2022
No. 21-10751
that Dr. George’s was not properly corroborated. We deem the remainder of
Finley’s contentions similarly unavailing.
AFFIRMED.
3