Honsberger v. Apfel

No. 99-10764
-1-
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 99-10764
Summary Calendar
RAY HONSBERGER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:98-CV-617-Y
--------------------
February 25, 2000
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ray Honsberger appeals the magistrate judge’s judgment
affirming the decision of the Commissioner to deny Honsberger’s
disability claim. Our review is limited to determining whether
the record as a whole shows that the Commissioner’s decision is
supported by substantial evidence and whether the Commissioner
applied the proper legal standards. See Anthony v. Sullivan, 954
F.2d 289, 292 (5th Cir. 1992).
The ALJ’s determination that Honsberger’s medical conditions
failed to meet the criteria set forth in the Impairment Ratings

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 99-10764
-2-
is supported by substantial evidence. As for Honsberger’s
ability to perform work despite his complaints of severe
headaches and neck pain, the ALJ has great discretion in
determining whether pain is disabling. See Wren v. Sullivan, 925
F.2d 123, 128 (5th Cir. 1991). The ALJ acted within his
discretion in rejecting these claims. See Griego v. Sullivan,
940 F.2d 942, 945 (5th Cir. 1991).
We also find no error in the ALJ’s determination that
numerous jobs exist meeting Honsberger’s limitations. See Morris
v. Bowen, 864 F.2d 333, 335-36 (5th Cir. 1988). Thus, the ALJ
properly concluded that Honsberger is not disabled.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the
magistrate judge.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --