Williams 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 99-11111
Summary Calendar
THEO WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:97-CV-1294-X
--------------------
September 22, 2000
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Theo Williams appeals the district court’s judgment
dismissing his complaint against the Social Security Commissioner
and affirming the Commissioner’s decision that Williams’
disability ceased on January 25, 1994, and that he was therefore
not entitled to Disability Insurance Benefits at the close of
March, 1994. Williams asserted in the district court and on
appeal that (1) the administrative law judge (ALJ), did not give
proper weight to the opinion of Dr. Kevin Gill, Williams’

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 99-11111
-2-
treating physician, and (2) that the ALJ misinterpreted and/or
did not give appropriate weight to the testimony of the
vocational expert (V.E.).
The ALJ considered Dr. Gill’s report and found no objective
medical findings to show that Williams was able to work on or
after January 25, 1994. Dr. Richard Friedman opined that
Williams had the functional capacity to perform sedentary/light
work. This opinion was supported by the reports of Dr. David
Webb and Dr. George Sibley. The ALJ also considered the V.E.’s
testimony. The V.E. concluded that Williams would be able to
perform jobs of routing clerk, route delivery clerk, and
electronic accessory assembler despite Williams’ physical
limitations. The V.E. further testified that these jobs existed
in significant number in the national economy. Accordingly, the
ALJ’s decision that Williams’ disability ceased in January 1994
is supported by substantial evidence.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --