IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-10856
(Summary Calendar)
ANNAMMA JOSEPH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SHIRLEY S. CHATER,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Northern District of Texas
(3:94-CV-2184-G)
April 11, 1996
Before GARWOOD, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM*:
Plaintiff-Appellant Annamma Joseph, a registered nurse who has
suffered for years from the effects of diabetes and arthritis,
appeals the judgment of the district court affirming the ruling of
the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) which denied her status as
disabled and thus her disability insurance benefits under 42 U.S.C.
*
Pursuant to Local 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
§ 405(g). Despite agreeing with Joseph that the ALJ committed
errors of a technical nature, we do not find any of them — or all
of them, cumulatively — sufficiently egregious to constitute
reversible error when the case is viewed under the totality of the
circumstances, and we therefore affirm.
Without rehashing the procedural history of the case or its
long medical history, we conclude from our examination of the
briefs of the parties and the record of the case that all of
Joseph’s arguments depend on the correctness of the ALJ’s threshold
finding that she suffers no nonexertional limitations. In this
regard, Joseph is correct in asserting that the ALJ erred when,
after acknowledging her “grasping” limitation, he distinguished it
from “handling, fingering or feeling” by categorizing grasping as
exertional. More important to the overall view of the case, the
ALJ noted that the hypothetical question posed to the vocational
expert in this case required that “full credibility” be given to
Joseph’s testimony. By implication, the ALJ was unwilling to do
that. Although the record reflects that Joseph consistently
complained to her doctors about pain, tenderness and weakness in
her hands, there are few objective medical findings to support
those complaints. The initial x-rays of her hands in 1988 were
negative; in February 1990, her physician noted “persistent
swelling of her left fourth phalanx” but not in the rest of her
hand; “no active synovitis of the small joints of her hands” were
seen in May 1990; another physician’s notes on his examination of
Joseph’s extremities made no reference to her hands, although he
2
did note in August 1992 that her joints had become inflamed to some
degree; in September 1992, another physician stated that an
examination of Joseph’s joints was “unremarkable” except for one
toe on one of her feet; and, in January 1993, this physician noted
“no synovitis in the small joints of her hands [and] wrists.” In
sum, there is little objective evidence to show that Joseph’s hand
limitation was significant.
Especially in light of the deferential “substantial evidence”
standard of review of cases such as this, we conclude that the
errors of the ALJ do not rise to the level of “reversible” when
viewed in light of the entire record and the totality of the
circumstances. For the foregoing reasons, therefore, the judgment
of the district court is, in all respects,
AFFIRMED.
3