Lirley 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
March 23, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-10427
Summary Calendar
HELEN LIRLEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:02-CV-602-A
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Helen Lirley appeals the affirmance of the Commissioner’s
denial of her application for disability insurance benefits. See
42 U.S.C. § 405. Lirley argues that the district court exceeded
its authority because it made its own fact finding that
substantial evidence supported the determination of the
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that jobs that Lirley could
perform existed in significant numbers in the national economy.
A common-sense reading of the ALJ’s findings, however, is that

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04-10427
-2-
the ALJ determined that a significant number of inspector jobs,
as well as a significant number of surveillance system monitor
jobs, exist in the national economy.
Lirley also argues that the Commissioner failed to meet her
burden of proof because evidence that a cumulative number of jobs
exist in the national economy establishes neither the number of
jobs existing in the claimant’s region nor the number of
geographic locations where the jobs exist. Under 42 U.S.C.
§ 423(d)(2)(A) and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1566, work exists in
significant numbers in the national economy if it exists in
significant numbers in either the region where the claimant lives
or in other regions of the country. In light of the vocational
expert’s testimony that Lirley could perform the job of
surveillance system monitor and that 50,000 such jobs exist in
the national economy, substantial evidence supports the
Commissioner’s finding that Lirley is not entitled to Social
Security disability benefits. See Ripley v. Chater, 67 F.3d 552,
555 (5th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --