LeBlanc v. Halter

22 F. App'x 28
CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit
DecidedDecember 5, 2001
Docket01-1546
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 22 F. App'x 28 (LeBlanc v. Halter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
LeBlanc v. Halter, 22 F. App'x 28 (1st Cir. 2001).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Donald R. LeBlanc appeals from a district court decision upholding the determination by an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) that LeBlanc was entitled only to a closed period of Social Security disability benefits due to a back condition. We affirm, essentially for the reasons given by District Judge George O’Toole in his well-written Memorandum and Order dated February 5, 2001. We add only the following comments.

First, in arguing that the ALJ erred in her decision, LeBlanc relies in part on *29 medical evidence he submitted to the Appeals Council, but not to the ALJ. As a recent decision by this court indicates, in reviewing an ALJ decision, we do not consider such new evidence that was never presented to the ALJ. See Mills v. Apfel, 244 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir.2001), pet. for cert. filed (Aug. 29, 2001) (No. 01-6108) (stating that the court would review an ALJ decision “solely on the evidence presented to the ALJ”). Second, we have considered the Appeals Council’s denial of review in light of that evidence. See id. (indicating a denial of review by the Appeals Council may be reviewable if it “gives an egregiously mistaken ground for this action”). But we conclude that the Appeals Council reasonably denied review because of the sporadic nature of any impairment caused by LeBlanc’s cervical herniation, which was eventually addressed by surgery. See Chester v. Callahan, 193 F.3d 10, 12 (1st Cir.1999) (affirming district court judgment upholding denial of benefits where the “disabling nature” of the claimant’s condition had not lasted for 12 months).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Martinez v. Social Security
D. Puerto Rico, 2021
Srybny v. Berryhill
D. Massachusetts, 2020

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 F. App'x 28, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leblanc-v-halter-ca1-2001.