Senegal v. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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. 99-30491
Summary Calendar
PEGGY SENEGAL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
______________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 98-CV-1450
_______________________________________________
March 9, 2000
Before POLITZ, WIENER, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Peggy Senegal appeals from the district court’s affirmance of the
Commissioner’s denial of her application for supplemental security income. She
contends that: (1) the district court erred in finding that the record contained substantial
evidence to support the Commissioner’s denial of her disability claim; (2) the

-- 1 of 2 --

2Anthony v. Sullivan, 954 F.2d 289 (5th Cir. 1992).
3Wilkinson v. Schweiker, 640 F.2d 743 (5th Cir. 1981).
4Selders v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 614 (5th Cir. 1990).
5Paul v. Shalala, 29 F.3d 208 (5th Cir. 1994).
2
Administrative Law Judge's improperly relied on a hypothetical posed to the vocational
expert which did not relate all of her impairments; (3) the ALJ erred in applying the
Medical-Vocational Guidelines because they fail to take into account her nonexertional
impairments, and (4) the ALJ failed to consider the total combination of her
impairments.
Our review of the record, briefs, and dispositive precedents persuades that the
district court did not err in concluding that there was substantial evidence to support
the Commissioner’s decision to deny Senegal’s disability claim.2 The ALJ did not err
in relying on the hypothetical example testimony of the vocational expert because it is
not improper for an ALJ to accord less weight to a hypothetical example based entirely
on the claimant’s subjective testimony.3 Nor did the ALJ commit a legal error in
applying the Guidelines after determining that Senegal's nonexertional impairments did
not significantly affect her residual functional capacity to work.4 As regards Senegal’s
claim that the ALJ did not consider her combination of impairments, we lack
jurisdiction to consider that issue as it was not raised before the Appeals Council.
Senegal has failed to exhaust administrative remedies, a predicate for our jurisdiction.5
The judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --