Case ID: f-appx_115/html/0274-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Dana GIBBONS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 04-50653.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Dec. 17, 2004.
    Mary Ellen Felps, Austin, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    
      Winstanley Fiddian Luke, Assistant U.S. Attorney, San Antonio, TX, for DefendantAppellee.
    Before REAVLEY, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The ALJ’s decisions was supported by substantial evidence, and the ALJ used the proper legal standards to evaluate the evidence. Brown v. Apfel, 192 F.3d 492, 496 (5th Cir.1999). Despite Gibbons’ claims of disabling symptoms to her treating doctors, therapy notes and school records show that throughout the relevant time period Gibbons engaged in a full range of activities, including regularly going to the grocery store, acting as the sole caretaker for her child, attending technical and acupuncture schools, making new friends, and successfully losing weight. Further, Gibbons could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy such as packing boxes, cleaning vehicles, or assembling products. The ALJ also properly determined that the opinion of Gibbons’ treating doctors were in contradiction with their examination notes and the record as a whole. See Greenspan v. Shalala, 38 F.3d 232, 237 (5th Cir.1994). The district court’s decision is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.