IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-20088

LORRAINE MCCORD, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY, 

 Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CV-208

Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellant Lorraine McCord appeals from a final judgment 

entered by the district court, Judge Sim Lake presiding, which affirmed the 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security’s decision to deny McCord’s application 

for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Finding 

no error, we affirm.

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 27, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-20088 Document: 00513248068 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/27/2015
No. 15-20088

2

When her initial claim for benefits and subsequent request for 

reconsideration were denied, McCord requested and received a hearing before 

an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). The ALJ reviewed extensive 

documentary evidence, and heard live testimony from McCord and a vocational 

expert. Ultimately, the ALJ determined that McCord was capable of 

performing her previous work as a data entry clerk, or working in another 

occupation in the national economy, such as an office helper or garment sorter, 

and therefore concluded that McCord was not disabled as defined by the Social 

Security Act. McCord appealed the ALJ’s decision to the Social Security 

Administration Appeals Council. The Appeals Council denied McCord’s 

request for review, thus making the ALJ’s decision the final word of the 

Commissioner. McCord next filed suit in district court, seeking review of the 

final administrative decision denying her disability claim. A federal 

magistrate judge recommended that McCord’s motion for summary judgment 

be denied and the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment be 

granted. The district judge adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation. 

McCord appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner’s 

decision to deny her application for disability benefits.

Our review of the Commissioner’s decision on eligibility is limited to

whether it is supported by substantial evidence in the record and whether the 

Commissioner applied the proper legal standard. 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 

1383(c)(3); Jones v. Astrue, 691 F.3d 730, 733 (5th Cir. 2012). “Substantial 

evidence is something more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance.” 

Carey v. Apfel, 230 F.3d 131, 135 (5th Cir. 2000). The “substantial evidence” 

standard has also been described as “that quantum of relevant evidence that a 

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. “If the 

Commissioner’s findings are supported by substantial evidence, they are 

conclusive and must be affirmed.” Brown v. Apfel, 192 F.3d 492, 496 (5th Cir. 

 Case: 15-20088 Document: 00513248068 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/27/2015
No. 15-20088

3

1999) (quotation marks and brackets omitted). “The court does not reweigh 

the evidence in the record, try the issues de novo, or substitute its judgment 

for the Commissioner’s, even if the evidence weighs against the 

Commissioner’s decision.” Newton v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2000).

A careful review of the record in this case, a full consideration of the 

parties’ briefs on appeal, and a thorough analysis of the district court’s ruling 

lead us to conclude that the district court’s judgment should be affirmed. 

Specifically, the ALJ gave sufficient weight to the evidence from McCord’s 

treating physicians, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination 

that McCord’s mental impairments did not affect her ability to engage in 

substantial gainful activity, and the Appeals Council did not commit reversible 

error when it refused to consider medical evidence from beyond the relevant 

disability period. In sum, the district court did not err in affirming the 

Commissioner’s decision to deny McCord disability benefits.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-20088 Document: 00513248068 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/27/2015