No. 98-30247
-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-30247
Summary Calendar
ROXEANNA GUILLORY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
KENNETH S. APFEL,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 96-CV-2091
- - - - - - - - - -
March 22, 1999
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Roxeanna Guillory 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 and Supplemental Security Income benefits. Guillory
argues that the district court improperly applied the 42 U.S.C. §
405(g) remand standard to evidence which was contained in the
transcript of the record; that the evidence which did not support
per se entitlement at section 9.09 nonetheless established the
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 98-30247
-2-
presence of a severe impairment (obesity) at step 2 of the
sequential evaluation process; that vocational expert testimony was
necessary to establish that her past relevant work would not expose
her to protracted excessive stress; and that the ALJ ignored expert
opinion evidence that she was unable to perform past relevant work
as an insurance salesman, and thus failed to proceed to step 5 of
the sequential evaluation.
The federal regulations governing the administrative and
judicial review process for Social Security determinations are
contained in 20 C.F.R. § 404.900. Those regulations require a
Social Security claimant to exhaust administrative remedies before
the claimant can seek judicial review in federal court.
§ 404.900 (a) and (b). This court has held that the administrative
exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional. Paul v. Shalala, 29 F.3d
208, 210-11 (5th Cir. 1994); Muse v. Sullivan, 925 F.2d 785, 791
(5th Cir. 1987); Harper v. Bowen, 813 F.3d 737, 739, 743 (5th Cir.
1987). If the claimant fails to raise a particular issue in the
Appeals Council, the federal courts do not have jurisdiction to
review the claim. Paul, 29 F.3d at 210.
In her motion for summary judgment filed in the district
court, Guillory raised the following issues: 1) the ALJ erred by
not finding the claimant met the listing of 20 C.F.R. 404 subt
P App. 1 listing 9.09 for obesity; 2) the ALJ erred by finding the
claimant’s past relevant work as insurance salesman and that she
could return to that work; 3) the ALJ erred at step 4 by not
properly considering the effect of the severe mental impairment and
the effect of the medications; and 4) the Commissioner’s decision
No. 98-30247
-3-
is not supported by substantial evidence. Guillory did not raise
these specific arguments in issues 1-3 in the Appeals Council.
Therefore, the district court did not have jurisdiction to consider
them. Paul, 29 F.3d at 210. To the extent that Guillory’s
arguments on appeal are different from the arguments she made in
the district court, this court likewise does not have jurisdiction
to consider them because they were not raised in the Appeals
Council. Id.
In her appellate brief, Guillory does not repeat her argument
made in the district court that the Commissioner’s decision is not
supported by substantial evidence. This issue is abandoned. Yohey
v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993).
Considering Guillory’s first listed issue, whether the
district court improperly applied the 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) remand
standard to evidence which was contained in the transcript of the
record, because the district court did not have jurisdiction to
review all of Guillory’s issues except the question of substantial
evidence, and because she has abandoned the question of substantial
evidence on appeal, this issue is moot.
AFFIRMED.