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
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
disposing of a previous application (even assuming, arguendo, that
the ALJ’s ruling in this respect was ultimately prejudicial to
Dixon, which has not been shown). Dixon cannot demonstrate a
colorable constitutional 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
respecting the 1980 determination). Torres 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 in making his credibility determinations
regarding the testimony of Dixon, her treating physician, and the
medical expert. See Jones v. Bowen, 829 F.2d 524, 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 Dixon’s argument that the ALJ failed to establish
a full and fair record regarding her 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. See Bowman v. Heckler, 706 F.2d 564, 568 (5th Cir.
1983).
2
AFFIRMED
3