Crow v. Shalala, 94-6086
| Decision Date | 08 November 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-6086,94-6086 |
| Citation | 40 F.3d 323 |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
| Parties | , Unempl.Ins.Rep. (CCH) P 14180B Larry CROW, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna SHALALA, Secretary of Health & Human Services, Defendant-Appellee. |
Mitchell Gray, Oklahoma City, OK, submitted on briefs, for plaintiff-appellant.
Vicki Miles-LaGrange, U.S. Atty., Gayla Fuller, Chief Counsel, Region VI, Charlene M. Seifert, Acting Chief, and Joseph B. Liken, Supervisory Asst. Regional Counsel, Office of the Gen. Counsel, U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Dallas, Texas, submitted on brief, for defendant-appellee.
Before MOORE and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and BRIMMER, * District Judge.
Claimant Larry Crow appeals from an order of the district court affirming the final decision of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services denying his application for social security disability benefits. Mr. Crow claims that he is disabled due to his severe mental impairment or to a combination of his mental and physical impairments. The administrative law judge (ALJ) denied benefits at step four of the five-part sequential evaluation process for determining disability. See 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.1520; see also Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750-52 (10th Cir.1988) (discussing five-step process). The ALJ determined that Mr. Crow retained the residual functional capacity to perform light work and could return to his past work as an auto paint and body repair man because as he performed that job, it was light work. The ALJ therefore concluded that Mr. Crow was not disabled. The Appeals Council affirmed. We have jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 405(g) and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291. 1
In the district court, the only issues Mr. Crow raised were whether the ALJ erred in finding that Mr. Crow performed his past work at the "light" exertional level and by not obtaining more information about the mental requirements of Mr. Crow's past work. He did not contest the ALJ's conclusion that he could perform light work.
On appeal, Mr. Crow raises two different arguments: (1) that the Secretary erred in not finding him disabled due to severe mental impairment; and (2) that he was disabled during the relevant period due to the combined effects of his numerous physical and mental impairments. He does not re-argue the issues he raised in the district court, but essentially contends that he cannot perform any work, light or otherwise. Absent compelling reasons, we do not consider arguments that were not presented to the district court. Channel v. Heckler, 747 F.2d 577, 579 n. 2 (10th Cir.1984); see also O'Connor v. Shalala, 23 F.3d 1232, 1234 (7th Cir.1994) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fulghum v. Embarq Corp. (In re in Retirees & Emps. of Sprint Corp.)
...First, it was not presented to the district court and, therefore, it is not preserved for appellate review. See Crow v. Shalala, 40 F.3d 323, 324 (10th Cir.1994). Second, even if the issue had been preserved, Plaintiffs' reliance on Revenue Ruling 69–25 for the definition of “business neces......
-
Fulghum v. Embarq Corp.
...First, it was not presented to the district court and, therefore, it is not preserved for appellate review.See Crow v. Shalala, 40 F.3d 323, 324 (10th Cir.1994). Second, even if the issue had been preserved, Plaintiffs' reliance on Revenue Ruling 69–25 for the definition of “business necess......
-
Fulghum v. Embarq Corp.
...First, it was not presented to the district court and, therefore, it is not preserved for appellate review. See Crow v. Shalala, 40 F.3d 323, 324 (10th Cir.1994). Second, even if the issue had been preserved, Plaintiffs' reliance on Revenue Ruling 69–25 for the definition of “business neces......
-
United States ex rel. Sorenson v. Wadsworth Bros. Constr. Co.
...to payment. "Absent compelling reasons, we do not consider arguments that were not presented to the district court." Crow v. Shalala , 40 F.3d 323, 324 (10th Cir. 1994). Second, as already discussed above, Farfield Company ’s analysis of the issue of materiality did not begin and end with a......
-
Table of Cases
...Iowa 1998), § 606.3 Crowley v. Apfel , 197 F.3d 194 (5th Cir. Dec. 10, 1999), 5th-99, §§ 107.12, 205.12, 308.1, 504.7 Crow v. Shalala , 40 F.3d 323, 324 (10th Cir. 1994), § 601.2 Cruse v. Bowen , 687 F.2d 1183, 1186 (8th Cir. 1989), § 205.5 Cruse v. Bowen , 867 F.2d 1183, 1186 (8th Cir. 198......
-
Federal court issues
...that were not presented to the district court.’” Puckett v. Chater , 100 F.3d 730, 734 (10 th Cir. 1996), quoting Crow v. Shalala , 40 F.3d 323, 324 (10 th Cir. 1994). (2) A claimant who fails to adequately object to the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation does not preserve specific issu......
-
Table of cases
...Iowa 1998), § 606.3 Crowley v. Apfel , 197 F.3d 194 (5th Cir. Dec. 10, 1999), 5th-99, §§ 107.12, 205.12, 308.1, 504.7 Crow v. Shalala , 40 F.3d 323, 324 (10th Cir. 1994), § 601.2 Cruse v. Bowen , 687 F.2d 1183, 1186 (8th Cir. 1989), § 205.5 Cruse v. Bowen , 867 F.2d 1183, 1186 (8th Cir. 198......