United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS August 7, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-60436
Summary Calendar
DOROTHY T. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JO ANNE B. BARNHART,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
(1:01-CV-5-BrR)
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Dorothy T. Johnson appeals, pro se, the affirmance of the
Social Security Commissioner’s decision to terminate her disability
insurance benefits and supplemental social security income. The
Commissioner determined that, post-surgery Johnson had undergone
medical improvement. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(f). Johnson contends
this determination was not based upon substantial evidence.
(Johnson also claims the Administrative Law Judge was not presented
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
with a complete copy of her medical records. We decline to
consider this claim because it is raised for the first time on
appeal. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342
(5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1138 (2000).)
Our review of the Commissioner’s decision “is limited to
determining whether that decision is supported by substantial
evidence and whether the proper legal standards were applied”.
Ripley v. Chater, 67 F.3d 552, 555 (5th Cir. 1995). “Substantial
evidence is more than a scintilla, less than a preponderance, and
is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.” Martinez v. Chater, 64 F.3d
172, 173 (5th Cir. 1995) (internal quotations and citations
omitted).
Johnson’s contentions are unavailing. There was substantial
evidence to support the Commissioner’s medical improvement
decision.
AFFIRMED
2