Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Andrews v. Chater, 95-10962 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 95-10962 Visitors: 15
Filed: Jul. 25, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-10962 Summary Calendar _ JACK ANDREWS, Social Security #XXX-XX-XXXX, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:94-CV-629-X - - - - - - - - - - July 11, 1996 Before SMITH, BENAVIDES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jack Andrews appeals the district court'
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT __________________ No. 95-10962 Summary Calendar __________________ JACK ANDREWS, Social Security #XXX-XX-XXXX, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:94-CV-629-X - - - - - - - - - - July 11, 1996 Before SMITH, BENAVIDES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jack Andrews appeals the district court's decision in favor of the Commissioner which denied Social Security disability benefits and supplemental security income to Andrews. Andrews contends that the Administrative Law Judge erred in finding that he did not meet the listing for Meniere's disease and in assessing his complaints of vertigo. Andrews also contends that the Administrative Law Judge erred by failing to assess the Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.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. 95-10962 -2- credibility of Andrew's nonexertional impairments. Andrews asserts that the Administrative Law Judge erred by discounting the opinion of his treating physician. We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and find no error in the decision of the district court. Accordingly, we affirm for essentially the same reasons advanced by the district court. Andrews v. Chater, No. 3:94-CV-629-X (N.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 1995). Andrews also moved this court to order a remand to the Commissioner for consideration of additional medical evidence. The motion is DENIED. AFFIRMED.
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer