IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-31301
Summary Calendar
ELAINE M. WILSON, on behalf of
Candace L. Wilson,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SHIRLEY S. CHATER,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 94-CV-2174
- - - - - - - - - -
June 25, 1996
Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Elaine M. Wilson (“Elaine”) appeals the grant of summary
judgment for the Commissioner of Social Security in Wilson’s case
for judicial review of the Commissioner’s denial of supplemental
security income (SSI) benefits to Wilson on behalf of Wilson’s
daughter, Candace Wilson (“Candace”). Elaine contends that the
administrative law judge (ALJ) failed to consider Candace’s
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 95-31301
- 2 -
impairments in combination, failed to consider Candace’s
posttraumatic-stress disorder and adjustment disorder with mixed
features, and failed to apply the correct non-severity standard;
that Candace’s oppositional defiant disorder was severe and
significantly limited her ability to function; that the ALJ erred
by finding that Candace’s oppositional defiant disorder was not
disabling because it was in remission; that the ALJ erred by
requiring her to show a “marked impairment”; that the district
court erred by failing to require the ALJ to apply regulations
requiring consideration of concurrent impairments; and that this
court should remand her case solely for a calculation of
benefits.
In administrative proceedings, Elaine exhausted only her
claims that Candace’s impairments, when combined, satisfied the
requirements for a finding of disability. We lack jurisdiction
to consider Elaine’s other contentions. Paul v. Shalala, 29 F.3d
208, 210 (5th Cir. 1994). Regarding Elaine’s contention that
Candace’s impairments satisfied the requirements for a finding of
disability, we have reviewed the record and the briefs of the
parties and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
for essentially the reasons relied on by the district court. See
Wilson v. Chater, No. 94-CV-2174 (W.D. La. Oct. 25, 1995).
AFFIRMED.