* Pursuant to 5 T H 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

December 2, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-20469

Summary Calendar

DORRIS N. GLOVER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-01-CV-3843

--------------------

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Dorris N. Glover appeals the district court’s summary judgment

affirming the Commissioner’s decision to deny her applications for

a period of disability, disability insurance benefits, and

supplemental security income pursuant to the Social Security Act.

Glover argues that the administrative law judge (ALJ) relied on

defective hypothetical questions in denying her disability benefits

and that consequently the ALJ’s decision was not su pported by

substantial evidence; that the ALJ failed to properly consider her2

s ubjective complaints of pain; and that the ALJ abused her

discretion in denying Glover’s request for a medical expert to

testify at the hearing.

Contrary to Glover’s contentions, the hypothetical questions

posed to the vocational expert (VE) by the ALJ were not defective,

as the questions reasonably incorporated all of the disabilities

recognized by the ALJ. Bowling v. Shalala , 36 F.3d 431, 436 (5th

Cir. 1994). Glover’s counsel was also given the opportunity to

suggest to the VE additional disabilities, including Glover’s pain

and the side effects of her pain medication, not recognized by the

ALJ’s findings. Id.

Although Glover contends that the ALJ’s findings based on the

hypothetical questions were not sufficiently supported, record

e vidence adequately supports the disabilities recognized by the

ALJ, see id. , and substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding

that Glover’s limitations were not totally disabling. S ee Johnson

v. Bowen

, 864 F.2d 340, 343-44 (5th Cir. 1988). The ALJ considered

all of the evidence presented at the administrative hearing. The

ALJ determined that although Glover had severe impairments, she was

still capable of performing s ubstantial gainful activity. These

findings are supported by the medical records Glover submitted in

support of her applications. S ee Johnson

, 864 F.2d at 343-44.

Furthermore, the ALJ’s determination regarding the disabling nature

of Glover’s pain is entitled to considerable deference. C hambliss

v. Massanari

, 269 F.3d 520, 522 (5th Cir. 2001). In light of this3 G:\opin-sc\03-20469.opn.wpd standard, and considering the lack of objective medical evidence

corroborating Glover’s subjective complaints of pain, we must

uphold the ALJ’s conclusion that Glover’s alleged pain was not

sufficient enough to prevent substantial gainful employment. See

id. ; Johnson , 864 F.2d at 347.

Finally, although Glover cont ends that the ALJ abused her

discretion in denying her request for a medical expert to testify

at her hearing, G lover points to no evidence that, had the ALJ

allowed a medical expert to testify, would have been adduced at the

hearing and that could have changed the result of the proceeding.

Brock v. Chater

, 84 F.3d 726, 728-29 (5th Cir. 1996). B ecause

Glover fails to show that she was prejudiced by the ALJ’s denial of

her request for a medical expert, her argument that the ALJ abused

her discretion is without merit. See id.

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.