Summary Calendar ELINDA ORTEGA v. Michael Jastrue, Commissioner of Social Security

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-10848
Summary Calendar
ELINDA ORTEGA
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
MICHAEL J ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Defendant - Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas, Lubbock
USDC No. 5:06-CV-204
Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Elinda Ortega seeks disability benefits under Title II and Title XVI of the
Social Security Act. The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) denied her
application. Both the Appeals Council and the district court affirmed.
An individual is disabled under the Social Security Act if his “physical or
mental impairments” preclude him from “engag[ing] in any . . . kind of
substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy.” 42 U.S.C. §
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
June 5, 2008
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 07-10848
2
423(d)(2)(A). The ALJ found that Ortega was not disabled because she could
perform various light-work jobs that existed in significant numbers in the
national economy. While the opinion of Ortega’s treating physician arguably
supported her claim, the ALJ concluded that substantial evidence showed that
Ortega was not disabled. Ortega contends that the ALJ erred because
substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s ruling, and the ALJ improperly
considered the testimony of the vocational expert.
“This Court limits its review of a denial of disability insurance benefits to
two issues: (1) whether the [ALJ] applied the proper legal standards, and (2)
whether the [ALJ’s] decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record
as a whole.” Anthony v. Sullivan, 954 F.2d 289, 292 (5th Cir. 1992). After a
careful review of the record, we find that the ALJ applied the proper legal
standards, and substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s ruling. Therefore, we
AFFIRM.

-- 2 of 2 --