Parisi v. Astrue, No. 09-10152 (5th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED November 3, 2009 No. 09-10152 Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk MARIA PARISI, Plaintiff-Appellant v. MICHAEL J ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth USDC No. 4:07-cv-00711 Before BENAVIDES, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Maria Parisi, appellant, seeks review of the judgment of the United States District Court affirming the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her claim for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. Parisi does not point to any specific error in the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dated February 22, 2007, which became the * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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. No. 09-10152 final decision of the Commissioner. The Appeals Council denied Parisi s request for administrative review. The ALJ decision hinged on its finding that Parisi was not disabled because she retained the residual functional capacity to perform her past relevant work The ALJ decision is based on its conclusion at step four of the five-step sequential evaluation found in the Social Security regulations for assessing disability claims. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. Having reviewed the record and arguments presented in the briefs we are convinced the ALJ applied the proper legal standards in its analysis and that the decision that Parisi was not disabled under the Social Security Act is based on substantial evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the District Court upholding the decision of the Commissioner. AFFIRMED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.