UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
___________________________
No. 98-40570
___________________________
MICHAEL DAVIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
___________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. C-97-CV-103
___________________________________________________
November 8, 1999
Before DAVIS, JONES and MAGILL1, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:**
Michael Davis filed suit against Kenneth Apfel, Commissioner
of Social Security, in response to the ruling of an administrative
law judge (ALJ) denying Davis supplemental security income benefits
(SSI). The magistrate judge affirmed the ruling of the ALJ, and
Davis appealed to the district court. The district judge affirmed
the ruling of the magistrate judge, and Davis now appeals.
We affirm.
Davis first contends that the ALJ (and the reviewing federal
1
Circuit Judge of the Eighth Circuit, sitting by
designation.
**
Pursuant to 5th CIR. R. 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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 CIR. R. 47.5.4.
courts) erred in denying him SSI benefits based on musculoskeletal
impairments, neurological impairments, and mental impairments.
This Court’s review of such a contention is limited to two issues:
(1) did the Commissioner apply the proper legal standards, and (2)
is the Commissioner’s decision supported by substantial evidence on
the record as a whole.1 Substantial evidence is that which is
relevant and sufficient for a reasonable mind to accept as adequate
to support a conclusion. It is more than a mere scintilla of
evidence, but may be less than a preponderance.2
The ALJ properly followed the five-step analysis outlined in
the federal regulations.3 At issue in this appeal is whether
substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that Davis’s
impairment did not meet or equal an impairment enumerated in the
social security regulations. With regard to Davis’s claim of
musculoskeletal impairment, he has produced no evidence of muscle
spasm or significant limitation of motion in the spine as required
by the federal regulations.4 Thus, Davis has failed to meet all of
the specified medical criteria, as required by law.5
With regard to Davis’s claim of neurological impairment, he
has similarly failed to produce evidence that the condition was
brought about by vascular accident or that he has disorganization
of motor function in more than one extremity. This failure of
1
Anthony v. Sullivan, 954 F.2d 289, 292 (5th Cir. 1992).
2
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971).
3
See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920 (b)-(f).
4
See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, §§ 1.00B and 1.05C.
5
Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990).
proof by Davis is sufficient to support the ALJ’s finding that
Davis was not entitled to SSI benefits because of neurological
impairment.
As to mental impairment, Davis contends that he suffers from
major depression. Viewing the record as a whole, there is
substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s finding that Davis did
not meet the necessary minimum of four specified characteristics of
that syndrome.
Davis additionally contends that the ALJ submitted an improper
hypothetical question to the vocational expert called to testify in
the case, and the ALJ improperly omitted documents from the
administrative record. Davis did not raise either of these issues
before the Appeals Council. As Davis has failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies, this Court is not possessed of
jurisdiction to hear his appeal on those issues.6
On the basis of the foregoing, the judgment of the district
court is AFFIRMED.
6
Paul v. Shalala, 29 F.3d 208, 210 (5th Cir. 1994).
Davis v. Apfel
Combined Opinion