Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-41193
Summary Calendar

ROGERS LEE JACKSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
- - - - - - - - - -
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES
November 21, 2000
Before JOLLY, JONES and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
In Jackson v. Apfel, 120 S. Ct. 2657 (2000), the Supreme
Court granted Rogers Lee Jackson's petition for a writ of
certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case to this
court for further consideration in light of its decision in Sims
v. Apfel, 120 S. Ct. 2080 (2000), which rejected the view that a
social security claimant must exhaust issues in a request for
review by the Appeals Council in order to preserve judicial
review of those issues. Jackson appeals from a judgment
affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
denying his claim for disability insurance benefits, 42 U.S.C. §

No. 98-41193
-2-
405(g). He contends that the Commissioner failed to apply the
correct legal standards and that his decision was not supported
by substantial evidence. We have reviewed the record and the
briefs of the parties, and we conclude that the district court
was without jurisdiction to entertain Jackson's claim of hearing
loss because he did not raise the issue before the Administrative
Law Judge (ALJ), thus failing to exhaust his administrative
remedies. See Dominick v. Bowen, 861 F.2d 1330, 1332 (5th Cir.
1988).
In this appeal, Jackson does not argue whether substantial
evidence supports the Commissioner's decision vis-a-vis his
claims of right-eye blindness and a foot injury. Accordingly,
Jackson abandons these issue. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d
222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
Finally, Jackson's challenges the adequacy of the ALJ's
notice to Jackson of his rights to representation and to review
the evidence to be utilized in deciding his disability claim are
refuted by the record. Nor does the hearing transcript support
his challenge to the adequacy of the de novo administrative
hearing before the ALJ. See Carrier v. Sullivan, 944 F.2d 243,
245 (5th Cir. 1991) (hearing held adequate where ALJ reminded
claimant that he could be represented by counsel and questioned
claimant extensively about his condition, treatment which he had
received, medication he was taking, as well as his daily
routines, and how his illness had affected them).
AFFIRMED.