Case Name: Jerry W. HUDGENS 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: 2004-04-23
Citations: 95 F. App'x 706
Docket Number: No. 03-31021
Parties: Jerry W. HUDGENS Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 95
Pages: 706–707

Head Matter:
Jerry W. HUDGENS Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security Defendant—Appellee.
No. 03-31021.
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 23, 2004.
Janet Nicole Waguespack, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Una McGeehan, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Jerry W. Hudgens appeals a judgement affirming the Commissioner of Social Security's determination that Hudgens is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. Hudgens argues that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) applied the wrong legal standard and that the decision is contrary to the evidence. It is undisputed that Hudgens is currently disabled; however, his application for disability benefits was denied on the basis that he failed to establish that the disability existed on December 31, 1991, the date that his insured status under the Social Security Act expired.
The ALJ applied the correct legal standard, and substantial evidence from medical records compiled by Hudgens' treating physician supports the ALJ's finding that Hudgens was capable of at least light work on the date that his insured status expired. Ripley v. Chater, 67 F.3d 552, 555 (5th Cir.1995); Greenspan v. Shalala, 38 F.3d 232, 237 (5th Cir.1994). The decision of the district court affirming the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.