* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5 TH C IR

. R.

47.5.4.

1 United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

July 14, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 02-61035

Summary Calendar

____________________

GARY WAYNE CROUSE

Petitioner

v.

UNITED STATES RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD

Respondent

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States Railroad Retirement Board

A 457-98-8792

_________________________________________________________________

Before KING, Chief Judge, and SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

P etitioner, Gary Crouse, appeals the determination by the

railroad retirement board that he is not entitled to a disability

annuity under 45 U.S.C. § 231a(a)(1)(v) of the Railroad Retirement

Act. Because the record contains substantial evidence that

Crouse’s conditions do not render him unable to engage in any2

regular employment within the meaning of 45 U.S.C. § 231a(a)(1)(v),

we affirm.

Section 2(a)(1)(v) of the Railroad Retirement Act (the “Act”)

provides that an individual who has completed ten years of service

shall be entitled to an annuity, upon application, if a permanent

physical or mental condition renders him unable to engage in any

regular employment. See 45 U.S.C. § 231a(a)(1)(v)(2000). As set

forth in 20 C.F.R. § 220.100, to be entitled to an annuity, Crouse

had to demonstrate to the hearings officer that he was “disabled

for any regular employment.”

After an independent and thorough review of the evidence

befor e him, the hearings officer found that Crouse’s claimed

physical and mental impairments (including anxiety, chronic fatigue

syndrome, stress-related disorders, heart problems, sleep apnea,

degenerative disc disease, hepatiti s C and heart and liver

problems) did not render him unable to engage in any regular

employment, that is, none of his impairments considered alone nor

his impairments in combination significantly limit his physical or

mental ability to do basic work activities. S ee 45 U.S.C.

§ 231a(a)(1)(v); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 220.100. In a detailed

order, the determination of the hearings officer was upheld by a

majority of the railroad retirement board (a three-member panel).

Substantial evidence supports the board’s determination that

Crouse’s conditions do not render him unable to engage in any

regular employment within the meaning of § 231a(a)(1)(v). S ee Elzy3

v. R.R. Ret. Bd.

, 782 F.2d 1223, 1224 (5th Cir. 1986) (holding that

the board’s findings are “conclusive” if they are supported by

substantial evidence); Davis v. Schweiker , 641 F.2d 283, 285 (5th

Cir. 1981) (d escribing the substantial evidence standard as

requiring more than a mere scintilla of evidence but ca utioning

against substituting our judgment for that of the board); see also

Richardson v. Perales

, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (statin g that

“substantial evidence” is evidence consisting of “such rel evant

evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support

a conclusion”)

. Crouse’s contention that the board’s determination

requires reversal because the board did not consider the sideeffects of hi s medication is belied by the opinion of the board,

which clearly considers this argument on the second page of the

opinion. Crouse’s only other contention – that reversal is

required because the board did not consider all of Crouse’s

ailments in the aggregate – lacks merit. It is clear from the

record (which includes the sixty-five page transcript of the

hearing before the hearings officer for the rai lroad retirement

board) that the board carefully analyzed the work of the hearings

officer, who thoroughly reviewed the evidence regarding the

combination of Crouse’s numerous ailments. In addition to

reviewing Crouse’s numerous medical records and examination reports

from Crouse’s treating physicians (including the statement from Dr.

Bonchak, one of Crouse’s treating physicians, as well as statements

and notations from other treating physicians, radiologists,4

chiropractors and a consulting physician), the hearings officer and

the board reviewed Crouse’s work history, Crouse’s record of daily

activities, and testimony from a vocational consultant and from

Crouse himself. This record evidence abundantly supports the

board’s finding

We AFFIRM.