Court Opinion

ID: 9388892
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-22 00:00:33.039036+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:23.706015
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20559        Document: 00516721353             Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/21/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                     United States Court of Appeals
                                                                               Fifth Circuit

                                      No. 22-20559                           FILED
                                    Summary Calendar                     April 21, 2023
                                    ____________                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                             Clerk
   Jesus Miranda,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

                                               Defendant—Appellee.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:21-CV-1029
                     ______________________________

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Jesus Miranda appeals the Social Security Administration (“SSA”)
   Commissioner’s partial denial of his application for disability insurance
   benefits and supplemental security income. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 423, 1382.
         Miranda claims he suffers from a variety of problems that qualified
   him as disabled from February 2013 through October 2019. The SSA denied

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20559      Document: 00516721353          Page: 2    Date Filed: 04/21/2023

                                    No. 22-20559

   Miranda’s applications. Miranda then requested a hearing before an ALJ,
   which took place on January 9, 2020. Miranda, his spouse, a medical expert,
   and a vocational expert all testified. The ALJ rendered a partially favorable
   decision: finding him disabled after, but not before, his fiftieth birthday. The
   Appeals Council denied Miranda’s request to review the ALJ’s decision.
   Miranda appealed to the district court, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which also
   affirmed.
          Miranda then appealed to us. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
   § 1291. “Our standard of review of social security disability claims is
   exceedingly deferential and limited to two inquiries: whether substantial
   evidence supports the ALJ’s decision, and whether the ALJ applied the
   proper legal standards when evaluating the evidence.” Taylor v. Astrue, 706
   F.3d 600, 602 (5th Cir. 2012).
          Miranda alleges two errors. First, he claims the ALJ erred in
   determining that none of Miranda’s impairments met or equaled one of the
   relevant listed impairments. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii),
   416.920(a)(4)(iii); see also 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpt. P, App’x 1. Second, he
   says the ALJ also erred by finding that Miranda could have performed work
   available in significant numbers in the national economy. See 20 C.F.R.
   §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v); 416.920(a)(4)(V).
          We disagree: Substantial evidence supported each of these findings.
   The record demonstrates that the ALJ appropriately considered Miranda’s
   treatment history and other relevant evidence in concluding that he did not
   satisfy all the relevant criteria. See 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpt. P, App’x 1,
   § 12.04; see also Castillo v. Barnhart, 151 F. App’x 334, 335 (5th Cir. 2005)
   (“That the ALJ did not specifically cite each and every piece of medical
   evidence considered does not establish an actual failure to consider the
   evidence. The ALJ’s decision indicates that he properly considered,

                                              2
Case: 22-20559     Document: 00516721353          Page: 3   Date Filed: 04/21/2023

                                   No. 22-20559

   referenced, and balanced the [evidence.]” (quotation omitted)). Likewise,
   the ALJ properly relied upon the vocational expert’s testimony that someone
   of Miranda’s age, education, past work experience, and residual functional
   capacity could perform jobs existing in sufficient numbers in the economy.
   See Masterson v. Barnhart, 309 F.3d 267, 273 (2002) (“Masterson objects that
   the ALJ asked Marion improper hypothetical questions about Masterson’s
   abilities, but the record clearly reflects that the ALJ scrupulously
   incorporated into the hypothetical questions all of Masterson’s disabilities
   supported by evidence and recognized by the ALJ.”).
         AFFIRMED.

                                            3