* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-10234

Summary Calendar

ARLIN D. STORY

Plaintiff-Appellant 

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

3:06-CV-2212

Before DAVIS, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denied Arlin D.

Story’s application for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”). Story challenged

this determination in district court, and the district court affirmed. Story now

appeals the district court’s judgment. We AFFIRM. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 30, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-10234

2

Story filed his application for DIB in 2005, alleging that blindness in his

right eye had left him disabled since 2001. The Administrative Law Judge

(“ALJ”) conducted a hearing and determined that Story did not suffer from a

“severe impairment,” defeating Story’s claim for DIB. The Appeals Council

denied review of the ALJ’s decision, rendering it the final decision of the

Commissioner. See Higginbotham v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 332, 336–37 (5th Cir.

2005). Story sought review of the Commissioner’s decision in federal district

court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The district court, adopting the

magistrate’s Report and Recommendation, affirmed the Commissioner’s decision.

Story now appeals.

Our review of the Commissioner’s decision under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is

limited to two areas of inquiry: (1) whether there is substantial evidence to

supportthe Commissioner’s decision, and (2) whether the Commissioner adhered

to the proper legal standards when evaluating the evidence. Greenspan v.

Shalala, 38 F.3d 232, 236 (5th Cir. 1994). A finding of substantial evidence will

be reached if the evidence examined by the Commissioner “is ‘such relevant

evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a

conclusion.’” Id. (quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)). 

Story first contends that the record lacks substantial evidence to support

the ALJ’s finding that Story’s blindness was not a “severe impairment.” A

severe impairment is one that “significantly limits [the claimant’s] physical or

mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. 404.1520(c). “An

impairment can be considered not severe only if it is a slight abnormality

[having] such minimal effects on the individual that it would not be expected to

interfere with the individual’s ability to work, irrespective of age, education, or

work experience.” Stone v. Heckler, 752 F.2d 1099, 1101 (5th Cir. 1985). 

It is clear that Story is blind in his right eye and suffers some level of

resulting pain and discomfort. However, the record also reveals that Story
No. 08-10234

3

missed multiple medical appointments because he was working on construction

jobs; admitted that his symptoms improved when he complied with treatment;

and performed daily activities such as gardening, mowing the lawn, and walking

to visit his relatives. Taken as a whole, this constitutes substantial evidence to

support a finding that Story’s impairment did not“substantially limit” his ability

to do “basic work activities.”

Story also argues that the ALJ erred by failing to make explicit credibility

findings as to Story’s testimony on the effects of his eye impairment. While an

ALJ must consider the credibility of a claimant’s testimony, we do not require

the ALJ to explicitly state his opinion on the veracity of each allegation. See

Haywood v. Sullivan, 888 F.2d 1463, 1469–70 (5th Cir. 1989) (holding that the

ALJ’s consideration of a claimant’s subjective testimony was sufficient). In this

case,the ALJ clearly considered Story’s claims and found them inconsistent with

the medical evidence. Thus, the ALJ satisfied his obligation.

Story’s numerous remaining arguments lack merit or lie beyond our scope

of review. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court affirming

the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.