Filed: Jul. 01, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 97-50962 Summary Calendar JOAN GETZFRID, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-95-CV-400 - - - - - - - - - - June 24, 1998 Before JONES, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Joan Getzfrid appeals from the district court’s decision in favor of the Commiss
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 97-50962 Summary Calendar JOAN GETZFRID, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-95-CV-400 - - - - - - - - - - June 24, 1998 Before JONES, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Joan Getzfrid appeals from the district court’s decision in favor of the Commissi..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-50962
Summary Calendar
JOAN GETZFRID,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-95-CV-400
- - - - - - - - - -
June 24, 1998
Before JONES, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Joan Getzfrid appeals from the district court’s decision in
favor of the Commissioner which denied disability and
supplemental security income benefits to her. Getzfrid argues
that the Commissioner’s decision is not supported by substantial
evidence and that the Commissioner failed to apply the proper
legal standards.
The Commissioner applied the proper legal standards in
denying benefits to Getzfrid. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (1995);
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 97-50962
-2-
Leggett v. Chater,
67 F.3d 558, 563 n.2 (5th Cir. 1995).
Further, a review of the record reflects substantial evidence
supporting the Commissioner’s decision. See Ripley v. Chater,
67
F.3d 552, 555 (5th Cir. 1995). Getzfrid is not entitled to a
remand because she submitted new evidence because she failed to
establish good cause for her failure to submit the evidence
earlier and the evidence does not relate back to the time period
for which the disability benefits were denied. See
Leggett, 67
F.3d at 567. Therefore, Getzfrid failed to carry her burden of
proving a disability making her eligible for disability or
supplemental security income benefits. 42 U.S.C. § 423.
AFFIRMED.