IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 98-60147
Summary Calendar
_____________________
SUZANNE WALKER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:96-CV-206-BS
_________________________________________________________________
April 15, 1999
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Suzanne Walker appeals from the district court’s judgment
affirming the denial of her application for disability insurance
benefits. She argues that substantial evidence did not exist to
support the finding that she was not disabled, that the
administrative law judge erred by failing to comply with Social
Security Ruling 96-8p, and that the administrative law judge failed
to provide a rationale for the conclusions reached in the
psychiatric review technique form. The administrative law judge
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
applied the proper legal standard in evaluating Walker’s disability
claim, and the decision that Walker was not disabled is supported
by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See Muse v.
Sullivan, 925 F.2d 785, 789 (5th Cir. 1991); Anthony v. Sullivan,
954 F.2d 289, 292 (5th Cir. 1992). This court lacks jurisdiction
to review Walker’s claims that the administrative law judge failed
to comply with Social Security Ruling 96-8p and failed to provide
a rationale for the conclusions reached in the psychiatric review
technique form because these issues were not raised before the
Appeals Council. See Paul v. Shalala, 29 F.3d 208, 210 (5th Cir.
1994). Finally, the court did not consider Walker’s claim that the
determination that alternate jobs existed in significant numbers in
both the local and national economies was not supported by
substantial evidence because the issue was raised for the first
time in Walker’s reply brief. See United States v. Prince, 868
F.2d 1379, 1386 (5th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, the judgment of the
district court is
A F F I R M E D.
-2-