Filed: Aug. 13, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 96-50028 Summary Calendar _ DORA IRVING, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-95-CV-324 - - - - - - - - - - August 1, 1996 Before DAVIS, JONES and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Dora Irving appeals the district court's affirmance of the Commissioner’s
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 96-50028 Summary Calendar _ DORA IRVING, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-95-CV-324 - - - - - - - - - - August 1, 1996 Before DAVIS, JONES and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Dora Irving appeals the district court's affirmance of the Commissioner’s ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 96-50028
Summary Calendar
__________________
DORA IRVING,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SHIRLEY S. CHATER,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-95-CV-324
- - - - - - - - - -
August 1, 1996
Before DAVIS, JONES and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Dora Irving appeals the district court's affirmance of the
Commissioner’s decision denying Supplemental Security Income
(SSI) benefits. Irving contends that the Commissioner’s decision
was not supported by substantial evidence. A review of the
record indicates that the Commissioner’s determinations are
supported by substantial evidence.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 96-50028
- 2 -
Irving also argues that the administrative law judge (ALJ)
should have ordered a consultative psychiatric and/or
psychological examination to determine whether she has a mental
impairment. Because Irving did not request a consultative mental
examination while the case was pending before the ALJ and did not
present any testimony of mental health professional or other
evidence of a mental impairment, she did not meet her burden to
show a mental impairment or raise a suspicion requiring the ALJ
to order a consultative examination. See Leggett v. Chater,
67
F.3d 558, 566-67 (5th Cir. 1995); Pierre v. Sullivan,
884 F.2d
799, 803 (5th Cir. 1989).
Irving also argues that the ALJ failed to complete a
standard Psychiatric Review Technique Form. The failure to
complete the form did not affect Irving's substantial rights.
Mays v. Bowen,
837 F.2d 1362, 1364 (5th Cir. 1988).
AFFIRMED.