IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-50899
Summary Calendar
PATRICIA CRAWFORD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
KENNETH S. APFEL,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-96-CV-866
- - - - - - - - - -
September 24, 1998
Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Patricia Crawford appeals the district court’s judgment for
the Commissioner in her action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for
review of the administrative law judge’s (ALJ) decision denying her
disability benefits. Crawford argues that the Appeals Council
erred in failing to give reasons for disregarding favorable medical
evidence from Dr. Dennis or in failing to refer the new medical
evidence to the ALJ for consideration. Dr. Dennis’ March 7, 1996,
letter provided no additional evidence, but was merely a
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
restatement of his previous opinion. The Appeals Council did not
err in failing to give reasons for its decision that the evidence
did not provide a basis for changing the hearing decision or in
failing to remand to the ALJ.
Crawford argues next that the determination of the
Commissioner is not supported by substantial evidence. She does
not make any particular argument but merely “incorporates all of
the previous arguments and authorities” in her brief. Crawford
does not state specifically why she contends the decision is not
supported by substantial evidence. We do not address this issue
because Crawford has failed to brief it adequately. Yohey v.
Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993).**
AFFIRMED.
**
Crawford argues that the ALJ erred in failing to give
greater weight to the opinions of Crawford’s treating physicians
without adequate explanation and in evaluating the opinions of
nontreating sources. She also argues that the ALJ erred in
imposing an improper hypothetical question to the vocational
expert. Because Crawford did not present these claims to the
appeals council, we have no jurisdiction to consider these
arguments. Paul v. Shalala, 29 F.3d 208, 210 (5th Cir. 1994).