IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-41193
Summary Calendar
ROGERS LEE JACKSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JOANNE B. BARNHART,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:95-CV-660
--------------------
March 14, 2002
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES
Before JOLLY, JONES and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In Jackson v. Massanari, 122 S. Ct. 25 (2001), the Supreme
Court granted Rogers Lee Jackson’s petition for writ of
certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case to this
court for further consideration in light of the position asserted
by the Solicitor General in his brief for the acting Commissioner
of Social Security (“Commissioner”). The issue before the Court
was whether Jackson’s failure to identify his hearing loss
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 98-41193
-2-
impairment in proceedings before the administrative law judge
(ALJ) precluded him from alleging that impairment on judicial
review of the ALJ’s adverse decision.
The Solicitor General conceded, however, that Jackson did
raise a hearing loss claim before the ALJ; therefore, he argued
that the case should be remanded to the Commissioner to more
fully develop the record on this issue. “When a claimant is
unrepresented by counsel, the ALJ has a duty scrupulously and
conscientiously [to] probe into, inquire of, and explore for all
the relevant facts.” Bowling v. Shalala, 36 F.3d 431, 437 (5th
Cir. 1994) (internal quotation and citation omitted). We
therefore adopt the position of the Solicitor General and hold
that Jackson did raise his hearing loss claim before the ALJ and
that the ALJ should have more fully developed the record on this
issue.
We therefore VACATE the judgment of the district court and
REMAND the case to the district court, with instructions to
vacate the Commissioner’s decision and to remand the case to the
Commissioner for further proceedings on only the issue whether
Jackson is entitled to Supplemental Security Income benefits due
to an alleged hearing loss. The Supreme Court’s remand left
untouched our holdings on the other issues Jackson raised on
appeal.
VACATED AND REMANDED.