Irwin v. Barnhart

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
May 26, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-51384
Summary Calendar
CHARLES IRWIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-02-CV-362-AA
--------------------
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Charles Irwin appeals the district court’s judgment
affirming the denial of his applications for Supplemental
Security Income and Social Security Disability benefits.
He argues that the disability decision was not supported by
substantial evidence, the administrative law judge (“ALJ”)
used improper criteria to assess his credibility, and the ALJ

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 03-51384
-2-
was required to address whether he can maintain gainful work
activity.
We hold that the disability determination was supported by
substantial evidence. See Greenspan v. Shalala, 38 F.3d 232, 236
(5th Cir. 1994). In so holding, we determine that the record
supports the ALJ’s characterization of Irwin’s allegations of
disabling pain as not credible, we hold harmless the ALJ’s
failure to evaluate the opinion of the physician who treated
Irwin for his low back pain, and we conclude that the ALJ
adequately incorporated all of Irwin’s disabilities in posing
the hypothetical question to the vocational expert. See Wren v.
Sullivan, 925 F.2d 123, 128-29 (5th Cir. 1991); Morris v. Bowen,
864 F.2d 333, 336 (5th Cir. 1988); Boyd v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 698,
707 (5th Cir. 2001).
Finally, the evidence did not show that Irwin’s ability
to maintain employment would be compromised despite his ability
to perform employment as an initial matter, and there is no
indication that the ALJ did not understand that an ability to
maintain employment is inherent in the definition of residual
functional capacity. See Dunbar v. Barnhart, 330 F.3d 670, 672
(5th Cir. 2003). Consequently, the ALJ was not required to make
a specific finding with regard to Irwin’s ability to maintain
employment. See id.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --