* 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 limit ed circumstances set fo rth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

1 “The relevant law and regulations governing the determ inat io n of disabilit y under a claim fo r disability insurance benefits are identical to those governing the determination under a claim fo r supplemental security income.” Davis v. Heckler , 759 F.2d 432, 435 n.1 (5th Cir. 1985). United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED May 9, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-51618 Summary Calendar LOUIS IRBY,

Plaint iff - Appellant,
v. JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the Western District of Texas USDC No. 04-CV-971 Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Loui s Irby appeals the denial of soci al security disability benefits and supplemental security inco me under Ti

tles II and XVI of the Soci al Security Act. 1 Irby claims the Administrative Law Judge’s residual functional capacity assessment was erroneous because it did not expressly include any upper extremity or cervical limit ations. Our review is limited to determining whether the ALJ2 See New ton v. Apfel , 209 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2000).
3 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A).
4 See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920.
5 Greenspan v. Shalala , 38 F.3d 232, 236 (5th Cir. 1994).
6 Villa v. Sullivan , 895 F.2d 1019, 1022 (5th Cir. 1990). 2 used proper legal standards to evaluate the evidence and whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence. 2 Aft er a careful review of the record, we AFFIRM. Disabilit y is defined as the “inabilit y to engage in any substantial gainful acti vit y by reason of any medically determ

i nable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to . . . last for a conti nuous period of not le ss than 12 months.” 3 To determ ine whether a claimant meets this definit io n, the ALJ uses a five-step sequential evaluation and considers whether: (1) the claimant is performing substantial gainful acti vit y; (2) the claimant has a “severe impairment ”; (3) the claimant ’s impairment meets or equals one list ed in Appendix 1, Subpart P, Regulations No. 4; (4) the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform his past relevant work; and (5) if the claimant cannot perform past relevant work, whether he or she can make an adjustment to other work in light of his
or her age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity. 4 The claimant bears the burden of proof on the fir st fo ur steps, including inabilit y to perf orm fo rmer work. At step five, however, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that the claimant is capable of performing other work available in significant numbers in the national economy. 5 A disabilit y determination at any st ep is conclusive and terminates further analysis. 6 The ALJ fo und that Irby had the fo llo wing severe impairment s: chondromalacia/osteoarthritis of the left knee; mild bilat eral degenerative jo int disease of the knees; a slight annular bulge and disc7 See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945; Social Security Ruling 96-8p.
8 Soci al Security Ruling 96-8p.
9 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(c), 416.967(c) (“Medium work invo lves lift ing no mo re than 50 pounds at a ti

me wit h frequent lifting or carry ing of objects weighing up to 25 pounds. If someone can do medium work, . . . he or she can also do sedentary and light work.”). 3 dessication at the L4-5 level; neck, bilat eral upper extremity, and shoulder pain secondary to mild degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine; fused fourth and fifth metacarpals in the right hand; post-traumatic stress disorder; and majo r depr ession. The ALJ concl uded, however, that these impairment s, eit her singly or in com binat io n, did not meet or medically equal one of the impairment s list ed in Appendix 1. Therefore, the ALJ was required to assess Irby’s residual functional capacity to determ ine whether he was capable of performing the requirements of his past relevant work or, if no t, other work exi sti

ng in significant numbers in the national economy. The regulations require the ALJ to determ ine residual functional capacity by considering all of the relevant evidenc e and addressi ng the claimant’s exertional and non-exertional limitations. 7 Residual functional capacity “is an administrative assessment of the extent to which an individual’s medically determ

inable impairment (s), including any related symptoms, such as pain, may cause physical or ment al limit ations or restrictions that may affect his or her capacity to do work-related physical and ment al acti

vit ies.” 8 Aft er discussing the evidence in detail, including the medical records pertai ning to Irby’s neck, bilateral upper extremity and shoulder pain, the ALJ concluded that Irby “retains the residual functional capacity to perform a wide range of medium exertional level work, 9 limit ed to occasional bending and stoopi ng, limit ed to mo dest contact wit h others and no contact wit h [the] public, limit ed to j obs of average stress or less, and limited to jobs that do not require work around hazards such as dangerous mo ving machinery or working at heights.” The ALJ noted that4

Irby’s treati

ng physician restricted him from d oing any heavy bending, stooping, squatting, lifting, pushing, pulling, and carrying. Considering t he foregoing limit ations and the testimony of a vocational expert, the ALJ concluded that Irby was not disabled at steps fo ur and five because he could perform his past relevant work as a draftsman and aircraft mechanic and alt ernatively could perform sedentary, unskilled jo bs such as a surveillance syst em mo nit or, an order clerk in the food and beverage industry, and a hand packer. Irby asserts that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate his residual functional capacity because he did not expres sly include any limitations related to Irby’s upper extremity and cervical impairment s. The ALJ fully reviewed and considered all the relevant evidence and acknowledged Irby’s upper extremity and cervical impairment s. Despite these impairments, t he evidence in the
rec o rd does not demonstrate that Irby has any additional limit ations that would prevent him from performing eit her his past relevant work or the other unskilled sedentary jo bs the ALJ identified. Therefore, we find no error in the ALJ’s residual functional capacity assessment.

AFFIRMED.