Bowers v. Apfel

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 99-41393
Summary Calendar
IVA BOWERS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:99-CV-39
--------------------
July 24, 2000
Before SMITH, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Iva Bowers appeals the Commissioner’s denial of her
application for disability benefits. The district court affirmed
the denial.
Bowers argues that the Commissioner erred by failing to
apply Social Security Ruling 99-3(5) and this court’s decision in
McQueen v. Apfel, 168 F.3d 152, 155-56 (5th Cir. 1999), to her
case. However, the Commissioner determined at the fourth step of
the evaluation process that Bowers was not disabled. McQueen and

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 99-41393
-2-
Ruling 99-3(5) apply to determinations made at the fifth step of
the analysis. See McQueen, 168 F.3d at 154-56; 64 Fed. Reg.
28,855. Accordingly, there was no need for the Commissioner to
reach the fifth step. See, e.g., Wren v. Sullivan, 925 F.2d 123,
125-26 (5th Cir. 1991).
Bowers argues that the Commissioner erred by failing to hear
from a vocational expert. Because the Commissioner determined at
the fourth step that Bowers was not disabled, there was no need
to consult a vocational expert. See Green v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d
108, 112 (5th Cir. 1982).
Bowers argues that the Commissioner did not properly
evaluate the medical evidence. Having reviewed the record, we
conclude that it contains substantial evidence in support of the
Commissioner’s findings. See Anthony v. Sullivan, 954 F.2d 289,
295 (5th Cir. 1992).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --