Dixon vs. Chater (5th Cir. 1997)

Federal Circuits, 5th Cir. (January 07, 1997)

Docket number: 95-21000

Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/dixon-vs-chater-18395757
Id. vLex: VLEX-18395757

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Request manual translation

Search in this document

Document options

Citations:

Loading article preview... cerrar

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - 47 Soc.Sec.Rep.Ser. 40, Unempl.Ins.Rep. (Cch) P 14537B Gabriel G. Torres, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee., 48 F.3d 887 (5th Cir. 1995)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - Lois M. Bowman, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret M. Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee., 706 F.2d 564 (5th Cir. 1983)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - Jacqueline Bradley, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. Bowen, M.D., Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee. No. 86-2799. Summary Calendar., 809 F.2d 1054 (5th Cir. 1987)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - Antonio Fraga, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. Bowen, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee. No. 86-2594. Summary Calendar., 810 F.2d 1296 (5th Cir. 1987)

See other documents that cite the same legislation

Text:

* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has determine d that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-21000 Summary Calendar KATHERINE D. DIXON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (H-94-CV-1277) January 6, 1997 Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. * GARWOOD, Circuit Judge: Katherine D. Dixon appeals the judgment upholding the final decision of the Commissioner denying disability insurance benefits and/or a period of disability.

The ALJ did not err by refusing to reopen a 1984 decision disposing of a previous application (even assuming, arguendo , that the ALJÂ’s ruling in this respect was ultimately prejudicial to Dixon, which has not been shown). Dixon cannot demonstrate a colorable constitu tional claim that her rights were violated as there is no evidence that her failure to appeal the initial adverse determination was due to actual reliance on any defective language in the notice of the initial determination (this is also true resp ecting the 1980 determination). T orres v. Shalala, 48 F.3d 887, 893 (5th Cir. 1995). The ALJ did not err by determining that Dixon was not disabled during the relevant period. Substantial evidence supported this determination , and the ALJ applied the correct legal standards i n making his credibility determinations regarding the testimony of Dixon, her treating physician, and the medical expert. S ee Jones v. Bowen , 829 F.2d 52 4, 527 (5th Cir. 1987); Fraga v. Bowen , 810 F.2d 1296, 1302 (5th Cir. 1987); Bradley v. Bowen , 809 F.2d 1054, 1057 (5th Cir. 1987). Finally, this Court will not consider DixonÂ’s argument that the ALJ failed to establish a full and fair record regarding he r alleged psychological problems, as she did not raise this argument either before the Appeals Council or before the district court. This Court does not consider issues raised for the first time in an appeal of a social security case. S ee Bowman v. Heckler , 706 F.2d 564, 568 (5th Cir. 1983).

AFFIRMED