Filed: Aug. 15, 2005
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 15, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 04-30924 Summary Calendar JACQUELINE METOYER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 1:02-CV-01466-FAL - Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jacqueline Metoyer appeals the dis
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 15, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 04-30924 Summary Calendar JACQUELINE METOYER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 1:02-CV-01466-FAL - Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jacqueline Metoyer appeals the dist..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 15, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-30924
Summary Calendar
JACQUELINE METOYER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 1:02-CV-01466-FAL
--------------------
Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jacqueline Metoyer appeals the district court’s remand to
the Social Security Administration Commissioner for
reconsideration of issues of her residual functional capacity and
ability to return to her previous line of employment after the
Commissioner’s denial of eligibility for Supplemental Security
Income (SSI) benefits. First, we note that we have jurisdiction
over this appeal despite the fact that the district court did not
enter a separate judgment. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(7).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-30924
-2-
Citing Istre v. Apfel,
208 F.3d 517, 519 (5th Cir. 2000),
Metoyer argues that the district court’s remand order is not a
proper remand under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). This
case is distinguishable from Istre. Here, the district court
provided two substantive rulings on the ALJ’s decision:
determining that a later administrative law judge (ALJ) erred in
not considering the evidence on which the prior ALJ had based his
decision and that the later ALJ properly had discounted a
vocational expert’s testimony. Thus, the district court’s remand
is proper under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Cf.
Istre,
208 F.3d at 520.
Metoyer also argues that, because the Commissioner did not
appeal the ALJ’s May 1999 denial of SSI benefits, that decision,
which made a step-four decision that she could not return to any
of her past relevant work, is final. Therefore, she argues that
the district court’s decision should be reversed and remanded to
the Commissioner for a step-five determination of whether any
alternate jobs exist in the national economy in which Metoyer
might realistically perform. Because the district court
correctly found that the Commissioner had not reweighed the facts
upon which the prior determination was based, the district
court’s determination that remand is necessary is correct, and
Metoyer’s argument that reversal is mandated fails.
Metoyer also asserts that the vocational and disability
reports show that she was an advertising supplement inserter only
No. 04-30924
-3-
on a part-time basis. Thus, she argues that the ALJ’s conclusion
that she could return to her past work as an advertising
supplement inserter is not supported by substantial evidence and
violates Social Security Ruling 96-8p. Metoyer’s argument is
another challenge to the ALJ’s step-four determination, which the
district court has remanded for reconsideration of Metoyer’s
residual functional capacity and ability to return to past
employment. In light of the fact that the ALJ’s step-four
determination has been vacated by the district court’s order, her
argument to this court about the incorrectness of the ALJ’s step-
four determination is moot. The district court’s judgment is
AFFIRMED.