IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-11130
Summary Calendar
MANUEL V. PEREZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:98-CV-108C
- - - - - - - - - -
July 7, 1999
Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Manuel Perez appeals the district court’s judgment for the
Commissioner in his action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for
review of the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision denying
his request for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental
Security Income. We review the Commissioner’s decision to
determine whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence
in the record and whether the Commissioner applied the proper legal
standards in evaluating the evidence. Villa v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d
1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1990).
1
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
Perez contends that the ALJ failed to consider portions of Dr.
W. Joe Bray’s post-hearing consultative report dealing with Perez’s
impaired ability to reach, push, or pull. It is, however, unclear
what weight Dr. Bray attached to these limitations. Nowhere does
his report state that Perez’s ability to perform light work was
compromised by these limitations, and the report contains no
objective evidence indicating that these limitations were severe.
Furthermore, as the ALJ noted, Perez’s subjective complaints of
pain were not consistent with the objective medical evidence.
Finally, no physician pronounced Perez disabled or unable to
perform light work activity. Substantial evidence supports the
ALJ’s determination that Perez was not disabled, and no reversible
error has been shown.
Perez also complains that the ALJ’s questions to the
vocational expert at the hearing did not include any reference to
the above limitations, and the ALJ failed to submit any
supplemental questions to the vocational expert after receiving Dr.
Bray’s post-hearing report. Because Perez has not exhausted his
administrative remedies with respect to this claim, this court
lacks jurisdiction to review it. See Paul v. Shalala, 29 F.3d 208,
210 (5th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.