Court Opinion

ID: 19502
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 07:25:00+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:55:13.511263
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                          _____________________

                               No. 99-40287
                             Summary Calendar
                          _____________________

RUBEN CANCINO,

                                                        Plaintiff-Appellant,

                                  versus

KENNETH S. APFEL,
Commissioner of Social Security,

                                              Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Southern District of Texas
                       USDC No. C-97-CV-302
_________________________________________________________________

                             November 26, 1999

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Ruben Cancino appeals from the district court’s judgment

affirming the denial of his applications for disability insurance

benefits and supplemental security income.               He argues that the

administrative   law     judge   (the   “ALJ”)   failed     to    give   proper

consideration    to    his   complaints    of    pain    and     the   treating

physician’s reports, that the ALJ’s hypothetical to the vocational

expert disregarded the medical evidence, and that substantial

evidence does not support the ALJ’s finding that he experienced

improvement in his medical condition after April 19, 1993.                    A

     *
      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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
review of the record shows that the ALJ’s decision that Cancino was

not disabled is supported by substantial evidence on the record as

a whole.   See Anthony v. Sullivan, 954 F.2d 289, 292 (5th Cir.

1992).   Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

                                                  A F F I R M E D.

                                 2