Case ID: f-appx_105/html/0608-01.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

Freda SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 04-50064.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Aug. 18, 2004.
    Mary Ellen Felps, Austin, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Clayton R. Diedrichs, San Antonio, TX, Steven Allen Ford, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Freda Smith seeks reversal of the district court’s decision to affirm the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to deny Smith Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. The ALJ found that Smith was not disabled, could perform a limited range of sedentary work, and that there are a significant number of such jobs in the national economy. Smith argues that the ALJ did not properly evaluate her symptoms, pain, credibility, or residual functional capacity. She asserts that the ALJ merely stated that he considered all of the evidence in reaching his conclusion, rather than analyzing the evidence. Smith asserts that the ALJ should have recognized that she has an impairment due to severe depression, that she is required to he down frequently, and that she cannot sustain employment on a regular basis.

Our review is limited to determining whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standards and whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence. Falco v. Shalala, 27 F.3d 160, 162 (5th Cir.1994). We find that the ALJ adequately considered Smith’s symptoms and professed limitations and properly analyzed his findings in light of her contentions and the medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; Greenspan v. Shalala, 38 F.3d 232, 237-40 (5th Cir.1994). The record provides substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that Smith is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.