Case Name: Barbara Helen METTLEN, 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: 2004-02-27
Citations: 88 F. App'x 793
Docket Number: No. 03-40971
Parties: Barbara Helen METTLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before DUHÉ, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 88
Pages: 793–793

Head Matter:
Barbara Helen METTLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 03-40971
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 27, 2004.
Don Franklin Richardson, Williams & Byrd, Lufkin, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
William Winston Newbill, Social Security Administration, Office of General Counsel, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before DUHÉ, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Barbara Helen Mettlen appeals the district court's judgment affirming a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. She argues that the Social Security administrative law judge failed to properly apply Social Security Ruling 99-2p. In order to obtain reversal, Mettlen must show both error and some resulting prejudice. Newton v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 448, 458 (5th Cir.2000). Prejudice can be established by showing that the additional considerations " 'might have led to a different decision.' " Newton, 209 F.3d at 458 (quoting Ripley v. Chater, 67 F.3d 552, 557 n. 22 (5th Cir.1995)).
The administrative law judge's conclusion that Mettlen was still able to perform her past relevant work is supported by substantial evidence within the record. See Harris v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 413, 417 (5th Cir.2000). Therefore, in the absence of any specific argument suggesting that some potential error prejudiced Mettlen's claim, the ruling 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 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.