Case Name: Thomas Michael GROTHE, 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: 2005-02-15
Citations: 121 F. App'x 56
Docket Number: No. 04-10676
Parties: Thomas Michael GROTHE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before REAYLEY, JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 121
Pages: 56–56

Head Matter:
Thomas Michael GROTHE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 04-10676.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 15, 2005.
Thomas Michael Grothe, Fort Worth, TX, pro se.
Joseph Brian Liken, Social Security Administration Office of General Counsel, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before REAYLEY, JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Michael Grothe appeals the district court's affirmance of the Commissioner's denial of his application for disability insurance benefits. Grothe argues that the administrative law judge (ALJ) erred by crediting the opinion of a physician who was not a specialist. Grothe also contends that the ALJ erred by concluding that he could return to his past work as a vocational instructor. He contends that he has seen a specialist who is willing to testify that he is disabled.
The record supports the ALJ's decision to afford considerable weight to the disputed medical opinion. See 20 CFR § 404.1527. An examination of the record as a whole shows that there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ's determination that Grothe retained the capacity to perform his past relevant work. See Ripley v. Chater, 67 F.3d 552, 555 (5th Cir. 1995); see also Griego v. Sullivan, 940 F.2d 942, 945 (5th Cir.1991). Grothe's allegations concerning a specialist do not change this analysis. Grothe has shown no error in the district court's judgment or in the Commissioner's decision to deny his application for benefits. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.