UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
for the Fifth Circuit
_____________________________________
No. 95-10044
Summary Calendar
_____________________________________
THELMA GOODING,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
DONNA E. SHALALA, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN
SERVICES,
Defendant-Appellee.
______________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(3:93 CV 1675 G)
______________________________________________________
August 31, 1995
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM1:
Thelma Gooding appeals the denial of her application for
disability benefits. We affirm.
Gooding correctly argues that the district court erred by
considering new evidence of her obesity which had not been
considered by the Commissioner. See Harrell v. Bowen, 862 F.2d
471, 475 (5th Cir. 1988). This error was harmless, however,
because the evidence was not material to the issue of her
disability at the time she applied for benefits or at the time of
1
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases
on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless
expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."
Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion
should not be published.
the hearing. Johnson v. Heckler, 767 F.2d 180, 183 (5th Cir.
1994); see also Latham v. Shalala, 36 F.3d 482, 483 & n.2 (5th Cir.
1994). The new evidence relates to periods well after both events.
This evidence may, however, form the basis of a new claim.
Appellant next argues that the Administrative Law Judge
misstated her testimony regarding her daily activities and her
symptoms. The record belies this argument. We are satisfied that
he correctly recounted both her testimony and her symptoms.
Appellant then complains that the ALJ did not properly apply the
two-step process for evaluating symptoms. Yet Appellant cites no
authority that the record must demonstrate that the steps were each
applied discreetly and indeed the regulation itself does not so
state. See C.F.R. § 404.1529. The judge did state that in making
his findings he had considered all evidence presented relating to
Gooding's complaints.
AFFIRMED.
2