* Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule

47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 95-30494

Summary Calendar

_______________________

DON R. BROTHERTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SHIRLEY S. CHATER,

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

(CA-92-1708)

_________________________________________________________________

February 15, 1996

Before JOLLY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Don R. Brotherton (“Brotherton”) appeals the district

court's grant of summary judgment to Shirley S. Chater, the

Commissioner of Social Security, (“Commissioner”) denying

Brotherton’s application for social security disability benefits

and supplemental security income pursuant to the Social Security

Act (“the Act”). 42 U.S.C. 401, e t seq. and 1381, et seq. Becausethe decision of the Commissioner denying Brotherton’s application

is supported by substantial evidence, this court affirms.

BACKGROUND

Brotherton applied for disability insurance benefits in

January of 1989, complaining of physical incapacity due to a right

hip injury, degenerative arthritis in his right femur, degenerative

j oint disease, and fibrositis, an equivalent of muscular

rheumatism. Brotherton was denied such benefits both initially and

upon reconsideration.

Before denying Brotherton’s application for benefits, the

administrative law judge (“ALJ”) condu cted a hearing on

Brotherton’s claim during which Brotherton explained that he had a

high-s chool degree with additional training in heating and airconditioning repair as well as in electronics. Despite this

training, Brotherton had been unemployed since his last job as a

public-relations representative for the Salvation Army in 1987. He

blamed his joblessness on his alleged disability, noting that in

addition to the impairments listed on his application, he also

suffered from arthritis in his great to e and from a back strain

that prevented him from lifting anything over ten pounds.

After considering Brotherton’s testimony, the ALJ

determined that Brotherton was not disabled because he did not

suffer from an impairment, or combinatio n of impairments,

sufficient to warrant benefits under the Act. Doubting the

credibility of Brotherton’s testimony regarding the disabling pain

that he allegedly suffered, the ALJ rejected his claim that he was

unable to perform light work and concluded that Brotherton had theresidual functional capacity to perform his past relevant work.

The Appeals Council vacated and remanded the case for the

ALJ to reconsider his conclusion that Brotherton could perform his

past relevant work. At a supplemental hearing, Brotherton

testified that he did not drive except in emergency, could walk

only 400 feet, could stand for only 15-30 minutes, and could lift

only five pounds. He also explained that he had carpal tunnel

syndrome in both hands.

Nevertheless, upon reconsideration, the ALJ observed that

no examining physical had suggested that Brotherton be confined to

a purely sedentary lifestyle and that there was no clinical

docum entation of many of Brotherton’s alleged afflictions. As a

result, the ALJ concluded that Brotherton could at least perform a

full range of partially sedentary work, including lifting up to ten

pounds, occasional lifting and carrying of small items, and some

walking.

After the Appeals C ouncil declined to review the ALJ’s

decision, Broth erton filed suit in the district court. After

consenting to proceed before a magistrate judge, both parties filed

motions for s ummary judgment. The magistrate judge granted the

Commissioner’s motion and dismissed Brotherton’s suit with

prejudice.

DISCUSSION

After considering the medical treatments, reports, and

testimony before the Commissioner, the ALJ and the district court,

this c ourt concludes that substantial evidence supports the

Commissioner’s conclusion that Brotherton’s nonexertionalimpairments did not significantly circumscribe his abilit y to do

sedentary work. S ee Dellolio v. Heckler, 705 F.2d 123, 127-28 (5th

Cir. 1983). Hence, the Commissioner did not err by relying solely

on the statutory “Grids” to determine that Brotherton could do

alternate work. Id.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s grant of

summary ju dgment to the Commissioner and denial of Brotherton’s

application for benefits is AFFIRMED.