(citing Anthony v. Sullivan, 954 F.2d 289, 295 (5th Cir.1992)). 4 . See Crowley v. Apfel, 191 F.3d 194, 199 (5th Cir. 1999) ("Use of the ‘Grid Rules’ is appropriate when it is established that a claimant suffers only from exertional impairments, or that the claimant’s non-exertional impairments do not significantly affect his residual functional capacity.”); Loza v. Apfel, 219 F.3d 378, 399 (5th Cir.2000) (“[I]f it should be determined on remand that [claimant’s] nonexertional mental impairments during the period of disability were not merely a slight abnormality of minimal effect on ability to work, the ALJ’s reliance on the Grid Rules at the fifth level also constitutes error and must be reconsidered.”). 5 . See, e.g., Hearne v. Barnhart, 111 Fed.Appx. 256, 257-58 (5th Cir.2004)
holding that a silent defendant has the burden to satisfy the plainerror rule holding that the burden is on the plaintiff holding that the government must satisfy its burden of proving contract damages holding that a finding of severe depression prevented application of the grid rules alone to satisfy the commissioners step five burden holding that the burden is upon the state under the applicable federal rules of evidence