Case Name: Sabah A. RAHIM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-02-02
Citations: 125 F. App'x 524
Docket Number: No. 04-10648
Parties: Sabah A. RAHIM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 125
Pages: 524–525

Head Matter:
Sabah A. RAHIM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 04-10648.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 2, 2005.
Ingram Law Firm, McAllen, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Henry Ernest Velte, III, Social Security Administration Office of General Counsel, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Sabah A. Rahim appeals the district court's affirmance of the Commissioner's denial of his claim for Supplemental Secu rity Income benefits. Rahim contends that the Commissioner erred by finding (1) that he was not disabled during the relevant period and (2) that such a finding is improper without the Commissioner's discussing in the written decision six evidentiary factors set forth in Loza v. Apfel, 219 F.3d 378 (5th Cir.2000).
Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the Commissioner's decision regarding Rahim's complaints of pain and the severity of his impairments is supported by substantial evidence. The record also shows that the Administrative Law Judge fully developed the record and considered all of the medical evidence under the appropriate standard before rendering his decision, which the Commissioner adopted. See Stone v. Heckler, 752 F.2d 1099, 1101 (5th Cir.1985).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.