IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

______________________

No. 98-60126

Summary Calendar

_______________________

JUATASSA SIMS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KENNETH S. APFEL, 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

_________________________________________________

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT 

OF THE UNITED STATES

August 15, 2000

Before POLITZ, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Juatassa Sims appeals the district court’s affirmance of the Commissioner’s

denial of her application for disability insurance benefits, contending that the
1Sims v. Apfel, 162 F.3d 1160 (5th Cir. 1998) (table).

2Greenspan v. Shalala, 38 F.3d 232 (5th Cir. 1994).

3

29 F.3d 208 (5th Cir. 1994).

4Sims v. Apfel, 120 S.Ct. 2080 (2000).

2

administrative law judge: (1) failed to afford proper weight to a psychologist’s

opinion that she was severely depressed; (2) improperly excluded certain of her

impairments in assessing her residual function capacity; and (3) erred in failing to

order a consultative examination. In an earlier opinion,1 we rejected the first claim

on the merits, concluding that the ALJ’s credibility determinations in that regard

were entitled to deference.2 We also held that because Sims failed to raise the

second and third claims before the Social Security Appeals Council, we lacked

jurisdiction to consider them under our then controlling precedent of Paul v.

Shalala.

3

 The Supreme Court granted certiorari, held that it was inappropriate to

mandate the exhaustion of issues before the Social Security Administration, and

remanded to us for further proceedings.4

The Supreme Court’s directive does not affect our prior disposition of Sims’

first claim and on reexamination it is reinstated. However, because our earlier

opinion resolved her second and third claims on the basis of issue exhaustion,

consideration of the merits of same is in order. Our review of the Secretary’s
5Villa v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d 1019 (5th Cir. 1990).

3

denial of disability benefits “is limited to determining whether the decision is

supported by substantial evidence in the record and whether the proper legal

standards were used in evaluating the evidence.”5

Sims’second contention isthat although the ALJfound that her carpal tunnel

syndrome resulted in an inability to perform her past work, he failed to find that it

resulted in her inability to perform the jobs cited by the vocational expert, all of

which required frequentreaching, handling, or fingering. It is clear from the record

that the ALJ found that Sims was capable of performing a reduced range of light

work. A vocational expert testified that Sims’ former jobs involved medium work

and identified a number of jobs involving light work Sims would be able to

perform. We find and conclude that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s

finding that Sims’ physical impairments, including the claimed carpal tunnel

syndrome, were severe enough to prevent her from performing medium work but

did not adversely impact the performance of limited light work. Sims maintains

that the ALJ failed to account for her borderline intellectual capacity and

somatoform disorder in determining her residual function capacity. The record

reflectsthat the ALJ quizzed the vocational expert about the availability of jobsfor
6Bowling v. Shalala, 36 F.3d 431 (5th Cir. 1994).

7Haywood v. Sullivan, 888 F.2d 1463 (5th Cir. 1989).

4

a person capable of performing light work who had a mild to moderate difficulty

with concentration and attention due to pain, and moderate difficulty functioning

due to depression. We are persuaded that this question was sufficient to

“incorporate reasonably all disabilities by the claimant.”6 We find no merit in this

assigned error.

Sims finally contends that the ALJ should have ordered a consultative

examination to develop a full and fair record of her psychological condition. It is

readily apparent that the record contains sufficient medical and non-medical

evidence upon which to base a determination of the severity of Sims’ mental

problems. The decision by the ALJ not to order a further consultative exam was

within his discretion and we find no abuse thereof.7 This issue likewise lacks merit.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court isin all respects AFFIRMED.