[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Nov. 18, 2009
No. 09-12457 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 07-00614-CV-J-25-TEM
LAURA HENDERSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(November 18, 2009)
Before BLACK, CARNES and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Laura Henderson, through counsel, appeals the magistrate judge’s decision 1
affirming the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of her application for social
security income. Henderson asserts the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred by
(1) concluding her post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was not a severe mental
impairment, and (2) failing to develop a full and fair record. We address each
issue in turn, and affirm.2
I.
Henderson contends the ALJ erred by not finding her PTSD to be a severe
mental impairment. We decline to address this argument on appeal because
Henderson failed to raise it before the district court, instead asserting the ALJ erred
by not finding her depression–a distinct mental illness–to be a severe impairment.
See Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1161 (11th Cir. 2004); Jones
v. Apfel, 190 F.3d 1224, 1228 (11th Cir. 1999).
II.
Henderson argues the ALJ failed to develop a full and fair record.
Specifically, she asserts the ALJ’s failure to request and obtain an updated mental
1
The parties consented to the magistrate conducting the proceedings and issuing a final
judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
2
“We review the Commissioner’s decision to determine if it is supported by substantial
evidence and based on proper legal standards.” Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155,
1158 (11th Cir. 2004).
2
residual functional capacity (RFC) assessment from Dr. Andres Nazario constitutes
reversible error.
“Because a hearing before an ALJ is not an adversary proceeding, the ALJ
has a basic obligation to develop a full and fair record.” Cowart v. Schweiker, 662
F.2d 731, 735 (11th Cir. 1981). “Nevertheless, there must be a showing of
prejudice before we will . . . remand[] to the [Commissioner] for further
development of the record.” Brown v. Shalala, 44 F.3d 931, 935 (11th Cir. 1995).
In this case, Henderson does not explain how the absence of a mental RFC
assessment from the record precluded the ALJ from making an informed disability
determination. Nor does she explain how such an assessment would have affected
the ALJ’s overall disability determination. Because Henderson has not shown the
requisite prejudice, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3