Morales v. Massanari

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-51103
Summary Calendar
IRENE MORALES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LARRY G. MASSANARI, ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(A-99-CV-348-AWA)
--------------------
May 18, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Irene Morales appeals from the district
court’s grant of summary judgment adverse to her in its review of
the decision of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security denying
Morales’s social security disability and supplemental security
income (SSI) benefits. Morales contends that the Acting
Commissioner’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence
and that the administrative law judge (ALJ) failed to ascertain
from the vocational expert (VE) who testified at the hearing on

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Morales’s claim whether her impairments, when taken together, would
affect her ability to perform work.
We find that the Acting Commissioner’s decision is supported
by substantial evidence. See Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389,
390 (1971). Morales has failed to brief whether the Acting
Commissioner erred by finding that she was physically capable of
light work. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813
F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Neither does the record suggest
that the Acting Commissioner erred by finding that Morales was
capable of performing light work at the time of the Acting
Commissioner’s final decision.
The Acting Commissioner’s finding that Morales’s mental
conditions were not totally disabling also was supported by
substantial evidence. Morales’s testimony at the hearing indicates
that she could interact with others to some extent, and her mental
residual functional capacity (RFC) assessments indicate at least a
limited ability to function in the mental aspects of work.
The Acting Commissioner’s finding that Morales could perform
two of the jobs constituting her past relevant work, however, was
not supported by substantial evidence. The magistrate judge thus
prudently excluded the position of security guard from the list of
jobs that Morales could perform. In addition, the position of
machine operator is defined by the Department of Labor as a medium
work position, see 2 DICTIONARY OF OCCUPATIONAL TITLES § 600.380-018 (4th
ed., rev’d, 1991), and the Acting Commissioner found that Morales
was limited to the ability to perform light work. Morales’s own

-- 2 of 3 --

3
description of the physical requirements of her machine-operator
job also indicates that the job is beyond her physical capacity.
Nevertheless, the VE testified that Morales could work as a
house cleaner at a motel, an assembler, a cafeteria attendant, or
a cafeteria server, and the record contains no evidence calling
that testimony into question. The conclusion that Morales could
perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national
economy is therefore supported by substantial evidence.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --