Petry 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-20725
Summary Calendar
DONNA BELINDA PETRY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LARRY G. MASSANARI, ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas
(USDC No. H-00-CV-2409)
_______________________________________________________
December 19, 2001
Before REAVLEY, DAVIS and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Claimant-appellant Donna Belinda Petry appeals the denial of her application
for Social Security disability benefits. We review findings of the Social Security

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Commissioner for substantial evidence. See Martinez v. Chater, 64 F.3d 172, 173
(5th Cir. 1995).
Petry argued that she was disabled because of back and knee pain and
because she has been diagnosed as bipolar. However, an evaluation conducted by
Doctor Mary Franklin indicated that Petry had a full range of motion and stable
ligaments in her knee. In a later evaluation Doctor Eileen Stade noted that
objective test results did not indicate the source of Petry’s continued discomfort in
her knee. Doctor Stade noted Petry’s “attention seeking behavior with somatic
complaints without objective clinical findings.” On September 8, 1997, Petry was
examined at the MacGregor medical clinic, and the examining physician could find
no wasting or involuntary movements in her knee. A MRI of Petry’s spine taken at
the time was within normal limits, as was an EMG/nerve conduction study.
Petry relies on the diagnosis of bipolar disorder by Doctor Rukshan Azhar to
support her disability claim. But contrary evidence was provided by consulting
Doctors Denney and Sharifian, both of whom concluded that Petry was neither
schizophrenic nor bipolar. After a mental health examination in 1998, doctor Glenn
Sternes also did not diagnose schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. Two separate
doctors assigned Petry a Global Assessment of Functioning of over 65, which
indicates an ability to work.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Although Doctor Azhar’s testimony does indicate that Petry was disabled, on
review of a decision to deny social security disability benefits, a finding of no
"substantial evidence" is appropriate only if no credible evidentiary choices or
medical findings support the decision. See Boyd v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 698, 704 (5th
Cir. 2001). The medical findings of those doctors who contradict Doctor Azhar’s
diagnosis provide substantial evidence to support the Commissioner’s decision.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --