* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

June 18, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-30995

Summary Calendar

BRANDON WISE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:02-CV-1267

Before JONES, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Brandon Wise appeals the judgment affirming the decision

by the Commissioner of Social Security to deny his application for

supplemental security income. Our review is limited to determining

whether the Commissioner appl ied the proper legal standards and

whether the decision is suppo rted by substantial evidence on the

record as a whole. See Bowling v. Shalala , 36 F.3d 431, 434 (5th

Cir. 1994). We may not reweigh the evidence or try the issues denovo

. S ee Johnson v. Bowen

, 864 F.2d 340, 343 (5th Cir. 1988).

The record shows that the administrative law judge applied the

proper legal standards and that the Commissio ner’s decision is

supported by substantial evidence. Bowling , 36 F.3d at 434.

We reject Wise’s challenge to the hypothetical posed to

the vocational expert. The hypothetical question that an administrative law judge poses to a vocational expert need only

incorporate the d isabilities that the administrative law judge

recognizes. I d

. at 435; M orris v. Bowen

, 864 F.2d 333, 336 (5th

Cir. 19 88). Under B owling

, if the administrative law judge’s

hypothetical omits a recognized limitation “and the claimant or his

representative is afforded the opportunity to correct deficiencies

in the administrative l aw judge’s question by mentioning or

suggesting to the vocational expe rt any purported defects in the

hypothetical questions (including additional disabilities not

recogn ized by the administrative law judge’s findings and

disabilities recognized but omitted from the question),” there is

no reversible error. Bowling , 36 F.3d at 436.

Wise does not dispute that his representative was allowed

to cross-examine the vocational expert regarding the administrative

law judge’s hypothetical. Thus, even assuming, arguendo

, that the

administrative law judge’s hypothetical was d eficient in the

respects urged on app eal, because Wise’s representative was

afforded an opportunity to correct any perceived deficiencies,

there is no reversible error. See id.Contrary to Wise’s argument, Social Security Ruling (SSR)

83-12 does not contradict the vocational expert’s testimony that

sedentary and light work does not necessarily entail bilateral

manual dexterity. See SSR 83-12. Wise’s argument that SSR 83-12

undercuts the vocational expert’s testimony that he could perform

sedentary work is also without meri t. SSR 83-12 does not state

that a person who does not exhibit bilateral manual dexterity is

unable to perform sedentary work. Id.

To the extent that Wise argues that his case should be

remanded in accord with Watson v. Barnhart

, 288 F.3d 212 (5th Cir.

2002), for a finding whether he can maintain employment, Wise did

not assert that his condition only periodically precluded him from

working and did not offer medical evidence that his condition would

intermittently prevent him from maintaining employment or

functioning in the employment context. Accordingly, it is not

necessary to remand the case for the administrative law judge to

make such a determination. S ee Frank v. Barnhart , 326 F.3d 618,

619-20 (5th Cir. 2003). Given the foregoing, the judgment of the

district court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

.