IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-30212

Summary Calendar

TAMMY LAFLEUR,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 6:11-CV-01620-TLM

Before DAVIS, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Tammy Lafleur filed a claim for Title XVI Supplemental Social Security

disability benefits. Benefits were denied both in the administrative process at

the Social Security Administration and after first-level judicial review by the

United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. 

We AFFIRM. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 26, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

 Case: 13-30212 Document: 00512353383 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/26/2013
No. 13-30212

On February 7, 2011, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) conducted a

hearing on Lafleur’s claim and then denied benefits. The Social Security

Administration’s Appeals Council affirmed. The Council’s decision constitutes

the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s final decision. Lafleur

appeals from the district court’s affirmance of the Commissioner’s decision.

Lafleur seeks reversal based on the argument that the ALJ’s residual

functional capacity (“RFC”) finding was not supported by substantial evidence. 

Lafleur’s argument is based on three claimed errors, and we will discuss each.

The parties agree that Lafleur has “degenerative disc disease” and “carpal

tunnel syndrome” and was previously employed as a hotel front desk clerk. The

question is whether Lafleur’s conditions are sufficiently debilitating as to entitle

her to an award of benefits.

Judicial review of a denial of Social Security benefits “is limited to whether

the decision was supported by substantial evidence.” Fields v. Bowen, 805 F.2d

1168, 1169 (5th Cir. 1986). Substantial evidence “is more than a mere scintilla

and less than a preponderance. A finding of no substantial evidence is

appropriate only if no credible evidentiary choices or medical findings support

the decision.” Boyd v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 698, 704 (5th Cir. 2001). In making this

determination we “scrutinize the record in its entirety.” Fields, 805 F.2d at

1169. Eligibility for benefits is evaluated under a five-step process: 

(1) Is the claimant currently working? (2) Can the impairment be

classified as “non-severe”? (3) Does the impairment meet the

duration requirement of 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A) and is it listed, or

medically equivalent to, an impairment in Appendix 1? (4) Can the

claimant perform her past relevant work? and (5) Can the claimant

perform any other gainful job?

Id. at 1170. 

The ALJ denied benefits at step four, which concerns whether Lafleur

could still perform past relevant work. The ALJ found that Lafleur could return

2

 Case: 13-30212 Document: 00512353383 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/26/2013
No. 13-30212

to her previous work as a hotel front desk clerk. Lafleur has the initial burden

of demonstrating her inability to perform her prior work. See id. at 1169-70.

Lafleur seeks to show she carried her evidentiary burden both by contending

there were errors in the RFC finding and by emphasizing the importance of

certain limitations that were found to exist. 

One complained-of omission was that she should have been given an RFC

limitation on looking down. Dr. George Smith testified at the administrative

hearing that Lafleur “would have difficulty looking down on a persistent basis

without the ability to change positions.” Smith also testified Lafleur would

“[p]robably do better . . . not having to change the position of her head and neck”

in doing computer work. 

There is contrary evidence in the record that supports the absence of this

limitation. The state’s medical consultant, Dr. Charles Lee, did not indicate any

restrictions with respect to looking down. Also, Lafleur’s treating physician, Dr.

Vikram Parmar, found after two examinations that althoughLafleur had “severe

neck tenderness . . . . [s]he can touch her chin to her chest. She can hyperextend

her neck . . . .” For these determinations, the most weight is given to treating

physicians such as Dr. Parmar, who have the greatest degree of familiarity with

a patient’s medical conditions. 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c)(2). Less weight is given

to the testimony of physicians who perform consultative examinations, such as

Dr. Lee, and still less weight to testimony based on a review of medical records,

such as the testimony of Dr. Smith. Id.

The ALJ indicated she considered the opinion evidence “in accordance with

the requirements of” this and companion Social Security regulations. The ALJ

also indicated she considered other medical evidence “based on the requirements

of” 20 C.F.R. § 416.929 and made a credibility finding that Lafleur’s statements

regarding “the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects” of her symptoms were

not credible insofar as they went beyond the RFC finding. 

3

 Case: 13-30212 Document: 00512353383 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/26/2013
No. 13-30212

ALJs are required to “take into consideration all of the evidence from the

treating doctors.” Myers v. Apfel, 238 F.3d 617, 621 (5th Cir. 2001). The ALJ did

so, and the record contains credible medical evidence upon which the ALJ could

have relied to omit a finding as to limitations on looking down.

Lafleur also complains that the RFC found a limitation for overhead lifting

but no limitation on overhead reaching. The RFC stated that Lafleur could

perform “light work . . . except no overhead lifting and standing and walking for

thirty minutes.” 

After a review of medical records and consultative examination, Dr. Lee

concluded that Lafleur did have a limitation in “[r]eaching in all directions

(including overhead).” On the other hand, Dr. Parmar, Lafleur’s treating

physician, indicated in treatment notes after two separate examinations, that

Lafleur “has 5/5 [normal] strength in the bilateral upper extremities” and

“normal light touch” in those extremities. Earlier treatment notes state that

Lafleur had “full range of motion and no restriction [in] movement.”

Dr. Smith testified at the hearing that Lafleur “would have difficulty in

working overhead,” but did not expound upon the nature or extent of this

difficulty. Among the items of evidence on which Dr. Smith relied was Dr.

Parmar’s notes indicating “a good range of motion of her cervical spine, really at

that time was not having much [pain] in either extremity” and evidence that

Lafleur was “improving with [physical therapy] treatments.”

The ALJ opinion reveals that the opinions of Drs. Smith, Parmar, and Lee

were considered, and noted “consideration of the entire case record” and “careful

consideration of the evidence.” We have already quoted the ALJ as stating she

weighed opinion evidence in accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c)(1)-(2), which

would give more weight to the opinions of Dr. Parmar, a treating physician. 

Considering this testimony and other medical evidence in the record, there was

4

 Case: 13-30212 Document: 00512353383 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/26/2013
No. 13-30212

substantial evidence to support the omission of an overhead reaching limitation

in Lafleur’s RFC. See Myers, 238 F.3d at 621.

Based on an RFC finding that omitted any looking-down or reaching-up

limitation but included one for overhead lifting, the ALJ found that Lafleur could

return to her past work as a hotel clerk. Lafleur argues that this finding is not

supported by substantial evidence.

At the hearing, the ALJ asked vocational expert Beverly Majors1to

assume a hypothetical individual who “has no overhead lifting or downward

looking [ability] and must alternate sit, stand and walk 30 minutes.” The expert

was asked to state an opinion about that individual’s ability to work as a hotel

desk clerk. This hypothetical “reasonably incorporated the disabilities

recognized by the ALJ.” See Morris v. Bowen, 864 F.2d 333, 336 (5th Cir. 1988). 

The hypothetical even gave Lafleur the benefit of the doubt, assuming a

limitation for looking down although the ALJ did not find Lafleur was limited

in this respect. The question was not “too abstract to reflect [Lafleur]’s

particular disabilities” and, prior to answering, Majors clarified an aspect of the

question with the ALJ. See id. Further, Lafleur “had an opportunity to correct

any defect in the hypothetical by mentioning additional limitations to the

vocational expert.” See id. Majors and Lafleur engaged in a short colloquy

during which time Lafleur had the opportunity to speak. 

Lafleur argues that because the RFC findings underlying the hypothetical

were in error, the finding of ability to return to past work which relied on the

vocational expert’s answer to the hypothetical, was also in error, or not

supported by substantial evidence. Yet, Lafleur’s premise – that the

1The ALJ’s opinion refers to the vocational expert as “Lionel Bordelon,” but the hearing

transcript lists the expert as “Barilyn Mangers.” Lafleur’s brief states that the vocational

expert was named “Beverly Majors.” Regardless of the vocational expert’s name, the content

of the vocational expert’s testimony is not contested.

5

 Case: 13-30212 Document: 00512353383 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/26/2013
No. 13-30212

hypothetical question was flawed – incorrectly assumes the ALJ was obligated

to find Lafleur was limited in her ability to reach overhead. As we have

discussed above, substantial evidence supports the omission of such a limitation. 

In addition, we have not been pointed to any record evidence that Lafleur’s prior

work involved overhead work of any kind. 

The description of the hotel clerk job in section 238.367-038 of the

Dictionary of Occupational Titles includes telephone, computer, and other

clerical work, but does not indicate that any overhead work is a component of the

job. The descriptions of Lafleur’s past work in the record, including the

descriptions provided by Lafleur at the hearing, similarly do not evidence an

overhead work component to the job. Majors testified that Lafleur’s position was

largely “sedentary,” with Lafleur “sitting six hours” and “[t]he heaviest weight

lifted was two pounds.” Lafleur’s description of the job included standing up to

answer the phone or greet customers, using a cash register, writing, retrieving

files from other offices, and lifting paper into computers. 

The ALJ’s finding that Lafleur could return to her past work as a hotel

clerk was supported by substantial evidence.

AFFIRMED. 

6

 Case: 13-30212 Document: 00512353383 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/26/2013