IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-51149
Summary Calendar
JAMES L. COOK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER
OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-00-CV-706-SS
--------------------
June 7, 2002
Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:*
James L. Cook appeals the district court’s judgment
affirming the Social Security Commissioner’s decision to deny him
disability benefits. He argues that the Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”) erred in determining that he retained the residual
functional capacity to do medium or light work that did not
involve pushing or pulling more than 50 pounds occasionally or 25
pounds frequently; walking, sitting, or standing six hours a day;
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-51149
-2-
frequent kneeling; or use of the right eye. He also contends,
for the first time on appeal, that the psychological evaluation
he submitted to the Appeals Council, which showed him to have a
low intelligence quotient, met a listed impairment and should
have resulted in an automatic finding that he was disabled.
Because this argument was not presented to the district court,
this court will not consider it. See Shanks v. AlliedSignal,
Inc., 169 F.3d 988, 993 n.6 (5th Cir. 1999); Burch v. Coca-Cola
Co., 119 F.3d 305, 319 (5th Cir. 1997).
Cook has not demonstrated any error in the Commissioner’s
decision. Substantial evidence supports the determination that
Cook retained the residual functional capacity to do light or
medium level work with the specified limitations. Cook’s
argument that the ALJ failed to consider the combined effect of
his impairments is incorrect. His contention that the ALJ
disregarded the vocational expert’s testimony that a person using
a cane could not perform the medium and light jobs listed as
otherwise appropriate for Cook is similarly unavailing. Cook
conceded that no doctor had prescribed his use of a cane, and the
medical record is devoid of any evidence supporting his cane use.
The limitation of cane use asserted by Cook and not recognized by
the ALJ is not binding on the ALJ. See Gay v. Sullivan, 986 F.2d
1336, 1341 (5th Cir. 1993).
To the extent that Cook argues that the ALJ failed to credit
his subjective complaints of pain and other medical evidence he
No. 01-51149
-3-
asserts supports his claim of disability, he is correct, but this
court will neither reweigh the evidence nor overturn the ALJ’s
credibility determinations. See Chaparro v. Bowen, 815 F.2d
1008, 1011 (5th Cir. 1987).
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.