IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-30473
Conference Calendar
__________________
JEANIE J. JACKSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SHIRLEY S. CHATER,
Commissioner of Health
and Human Services
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 91-CV-1534
- - - - - - - - - -
(October 18, 1995)
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jeanie J. Jackson argues that this court should award her
disability and supplemental security income benefits because the
Commissioner was bound by the Railroad Retirement Board's (RRB)
determination that she is disabled from performing substantial
gainful activity.
*
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that this opinion should not be published.
No. 95-30473
-2-
In our review of the Commissioner's decision, we may not
examine new evidentiary materials, but are "limited to
determining whether to remand for the consideration of newly
presented evidence" by the Commissioner. Haywood v. Sullivan,
888 F.2d 1463, 1471 (5th Cir. 1989). We may remand for
consideration of additional evidence "`upon a showing that there
is new evidence which is material and that there is good cause
shown for the failure to incorporate such evidence into the
record in a prior proceeding.'" Latham v. Shalala, 36 F.3d 482,
483 (5th Cir. 1994) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)).
The decision of the RRB was "new" evidence because it was
rendered after the administrative law judge rendered his
decision. The decision is "material" because there is "a
reasonable possibility that it would have changed the outcome of
the [Commissioner's] determination." Id. at 483. Although not
bound by the decision of another agency, the Commissioner "is
required to consider and accord `great weight' to a determination
by [another agency] that a claimant is disabled." Johnson v.
Sullivan, 894 F.2d 683, 686 (5th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted).
However, Jackson has not attempted to show or shown that she
had good cause for failing to submit the evidence to the
Commissioner prior to the Appeals Council's denying her request
for review. The RRB issued its decision on February 28, 1991.
The Appeals Council did not deny the request for review until May
13, 1991. Jackson had an adequate opportunity to present the new
evidence to the Appeals Council prior to its decision and failed
to do so. Therefore, Jackson is not entitled to a remand of the
No. 95-30473
-3-
case to the Commissioner for the consideration of the RRB
decision.
Jackson has not challenged the district court's finding that
the Commissioner's decision was supported by substantial
evidence. Thus, she has abandoned such issue on appeal. See
Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744,
748 (5th Cir. 1987). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.