¶1 Barbara Helen Mettlen appeals the district court’s judgment affirming a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. She argues that the Social Security administrative law judge failed to properly apply Social Security Ruling 99-2p. In order to obtain reversal, Mettlen must show both error and some resulting prejudice. Newton v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 448, 458 (5th Cir.2000). Prejudice can be established by showing that the additional considerations “ ‘might have led to a different decision.’ ” Newton, 209 F.3d at 458 (quoting Ripley v. Chater, 67 F.3d 552, 557 n. 22 (5th Cir.1995)).
¶2 The administrative law judge’s conclusion that Mettlen was still able to perform her past relevant work is supported by substantial evidence within the record. See Harris v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 413, 417 (5th Cir.2000). Therefore, in the absence of any specific argument suggesting that some potential error prejudiced Mettlen’s claim, the ruling of the district court is AFFIRMED.