IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-60656
Summary Calendar
ALLAN PLOTKIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SHIRLEY S. CHATER,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:94-CV-553-WS
- - - - - - - - - -
May 6, 1996
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Allan Plotkin appeals the judgment upholding the final
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying a period
of disability and disability-insurance benefits. The ALJ did not
err by determining that Plotkin’s depression and headaches were
not severe limitations, and the ALJ applied the correct legal
standard to determine the severity of these limitations. See
Anthony v. Sullivan, 954 F.2d 289, 293 (5th Cir. 1992). The ALJ
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
did not err by not considering Plotkin’s testimony regarding his
impairments, pain, and limitations to be credible. See id. at
296. There was substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s
determinations, and the ALJ did not err as a matter of law. See
Fraga v. Bowen, 810 F.2d 1296, 1302 (5th Cir. 1987).
To the extent that Plotkin argues that: 1) the ALJ erred in
his findings regarding Plotkin’s respiratory impairment; 2) the
ALJ did not consider additional medical evidence; 3) the
vocational expert improperly characterized Plotkin’s former
employment as light, skilled work, instead of medium, skilled
work; and 4) the ALJ failed in his responsibility to develop the
record after Plotkin’s good-faith effort to retrieve treatment
records for the relevant period of disability, these issues were
only mentioned, and not properly argued in Plotkin’s initial
brief. Plotkin argued the majority of these issues in his reply
brief. This court will not consider these issues. See Yohey v.
Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993) (an appellant must
brief issues in initial brief to preserve them for appeal and
cannot raise them for the first time in a reply brief).
AFFIRMED.