(caption unavailable)

1 Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
for the Fifth Circuit
_____________________________________
No. 92-8456
Summary Calendar
_____________________________________
WILLIAM D. BROOKS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
LOUIS W. SULLIVAN, M.D., Secretary,
Department of Health and Human Services,
Defendant-Appellee.
______________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(A-91-CA-365)
______________________________________________________
(February 19, 1993)
Before JOLLY, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Appellant sought social security disability insurance benefits
alleging that he had been disabled since 1985 as a result of back
problems and related pain stemming from an injury in 1973. Following
an evidentiary hearing, an administrative law judge found that while
Appellant did suffer from back problems that made it impossible for
him to continue his past relevant heavy work, he nevertheless had the

-- 1 of 2 --

capacity for light work and was, therefore, not disabled. Appellant
sought review of this conclusion arguing that he was limited to
sedentary work. The Appeals Council denied review and appellant
filed a petition in the district court seeking review of this final
determination. The district court affirmed the Secretary's decision
and Claimant appeals. We find no error and affirm.
Appellant basically contends that the Secretary's decision is
not supported by substantial evidence in light of Appellant's
testimony and the medical evidence. We have carefully reviewed the
record, the findings of the district court, and the administrative
law judge, and are firmly convinced that both applied the proper
legal standards and analysis and that the findings are supported by
substantial evidence. We will not here specifically address each
argument advanced by Appellant, although each has been carefully
considered, but we do address the argument that the 1989 medical
opinion upon which Appellant relies requires a finding of disability.
Contrary to Appellant's contention, the ALJ did not reject this
opinion. His conclusions do not conflict with the conclusions of
that report. After considering the report the ALJ found only that
Appellant was not disabled. The medical report merely identified
Appellant's impairments, cautioned against increasing physical
activity and suggested he seek more care as his symptoms worsened.
The ALJ applied these findings to the medical-vocational guidelines.
He did not ignore these findings.
On the record as a whole, the Secretary's decision is
appropriately supported.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --