LeBlanc v. Halter , 22 F. App'x 28 ( 2001 )

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 01-1546
DONALD R. LEBLANC,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM A. HALTER,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. George A. O’Toole, Jr., U.S. District Judge]
Before
Boudin, Chief Judge,
Torruella and Lipez, Circuit Judges.
Francis X. Quinn, Jr., and Boynton, Waldron, Doleac, Woodman
& Scott, P.A., on brief for appellant.
James B. Farmer, United States Attorney, and Anita Johnson,
Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.
December 3, 2001
Per Curiam. Appellant Donald R. LeBlanc appeals
from a district court decision upholding the determination
by an administrative law judge ("ALJ") that LeBlanc was
entitled only to a closed period of Social Security
disability benefits due to a back condition. We affirm,
essentially for the reasons given by District Judge George
O'Toole in his well-written Memorandum and Order dated
February 5, 2001. We add only the following comments.
First, in arguing that the ALJ erred in her
decision, LeBlanc relies in part on medical evidence he
submitted to the Appeals Council, but not to the ALJ. As a
recent decision by this court indicates, in reviewing an ALJ
decision, we do not consider such new evidence that was
never presented to the ALJ. See Mills v. Apfel, 244 F.3d 1,
4 (1st Cir. 2001), pet. for cert. filed (Aug. 29, 2001) (No.
0l-6108) (stating that the court would review an ALJ
decision "solely on the evidence presented to the ALJ").
Second, we have considered the Appeals Council's denial of
review in light of that evidence. See id. (indicating a
denial of review by the Appeals Council may be reviewable if
it "gives an egregiously mistaken ground for this action").
But we conclude that the Appeals Council reasonably denied
-2-
review because of the sporadic nature of any impairment
caused by LeBlanc's cervical herniation, which was
eventually addressed by surgery. See Chester v. Callahan,
193 F.3d 10, 12 (1st Cir. 1999) (affirming district court
judgment upholding denial of benefits where the "disabling
nature" of the claimant's condition had not lasted for 12
months).
Affirmed.
-3-