Deborah Hughes v. Andrew Saul, Commissioner, No. 19-10664 (5th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 19-10664 Document: 00515193640 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/08/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 19-10664 Summary Calendar DEBORAH L. HUGHES, FILED November 8, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiff - Appellant v. ANDREW M. SAUL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 7:18-CV-87 Before SMITH, DENNIS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Plaintiff Deborah Hughes filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of the unfavorable decision by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”) regarding her application for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the Social Security Act (“SSA”) and application for supplemental security income (“SSI”) under Title 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 19-10664 Document: 00515193640 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/08/2019 No. 19-10664 XVI of the SSA. Hughes argued that at her hearing before the administrative law judge (“ALJ”), the hypothetical question the ALJ posed to the vocational expert (“VE”) was defective and constitutes reversible error. She also argued that the ALJ erred in failing to determine whether she was able to maintain employment. The magistrate judge 1 affirmed the Commissioner’s decision. We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the applicable law, and the relevant portions of the record. We AFFIRM the judgment for the reasons explained in the magistrate judge’s order. The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); FED. R. CIV. P. 73(a). 1 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.