Case Name: Leon JACKSON, Jr., Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-01-29
Citations: 215 F. App'x 324
Docket Number: No. 06-10853
Parties: Leon JACKSON, Jr., Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Appellee.
Judges: Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 215
Pages: 324–324

Head Matter:
Leon JACKSON, Jr., Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Appellee.
No. 06-10853
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 29, 2007.
Robert E. Barfield, Amarillo, TX, for Appellant.
Dale Gordon Bryant, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Amarillo, TX, for Appellee.
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The appellant, Leon Jackson, Jr., alleges that an administrative decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying his application for disability benefits was not supported by substantial evidence. Leggett v. Chater, 67 F.3d 558, 563-64 (5th Cir.1995). In reviewing the Commissioner's decision, we grant it "great deference" and do not disturb it unless we "cannot find substantial evidence in the record to support the Commissioner's decision or [find] that the Commissioner made an error of law." Id.
Contrary to the petitioner's assertions, the Administrative Law Judge here relied on more than "impugning of the claimant's testimony" and "the claimant's activities of daily living." The opinion below was supported by the medical examination of the plaintiff by Drs. Plummer and Malay in 2001. Dr. Plummer's report supports the ALJ's determination that the plaintiff is not disabled, and Dr. Malay's notes do not conflict with it. We find no error in the ALJ's decision to credit these reports rather than the 1991 examination by Dr. Cole, relied upon by the plaintiff. We therefore AFFIRM.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.