Sabah A. Rahim appeals the district court’s affirmance of the Commissioner’s denial of his claim for Supplemental Secu *525 rity Income benefits. Rahim contends that the Commissioner erred by finding (1) that he was not disabled during the relevant period and (2) that such a finding is improper without the Commissioner’s discussing in the written decision six evidentiary factors set forth in Loza v. Apfel, 219 F.3d 378 (5th Cir. 2000).

Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the Commissioner’s decision regarding Rahim’s complaints of pain and the severity of his impairments is supported by substantial evidence. The record also shows that the Administrative Law Judge fully developed the record and considered all of the medical evidence under the appropriate standard before rendering his decision, which the Commissioner adopted. See Stone v. Heckler, 752 F.2d 1099, 1101 (5th Cir. 1985).

AFFIRMED.