Case Name: David J. VIATOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-09
Citations: 157 F. App'x 709
Docket Number: No. 05-30391
Parties: David J. VIATOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 157
Pages: 709–709

Head Matter:
David J. VIATOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 05-30391.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Dec. 9, 2005.
Jo Ann Nixon, New Iberia, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Scott Thomas Morris, Social Security Administration Office of General Counsel, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The judgment of the district court is affirmed for these reasons:
1. The Administrative Law Judge considered Mr. Viator's continuing employment as some evidence of his ability to return to his past work, not as present substantial gainful activity of itself to meet the first step in the evaluation process.
2. There is evidence to support the findings. No medical professional has said that Viator is disabled or cannot return to his prior work. His time walking is not critical for that employment, but the doctor's opinion that he could stand for 30 minutes is not inconsistent with a finding that he could stand for up to six hours in an eight-hour day, allowing for rest between the periods of standing. There is evidence that Viator's physical and mental problems are adequately controlled by medication.
3. The contention about improper use of the vocational expert is unavailing, because the record supported the findings and the expert only corroborated that.
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.