Beaumont v. Barnhart , 81 F. App'x 839 ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS December 4, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-40807
Summary Calendar
SHELIA R. BEAUMONT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:02-CV-313
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Shelia R. Beaumont filed a complaint seeking review
of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
(“the Commissioner”) denying her application for Supplemental
Security Income benefits. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). After the
Commissioner answered Beaumont’s complaint, the Commissioner
moved the district court to reverse the agency’s decision and
to remand the matter for further administrative proceedings.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-40807
-2-
The district court granted the motion and remanded the matter
pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
The fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) provides that
“[t]he [district] court shall have power to enter, upon the
pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming,
modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of
Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a
rehearing.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Beaumont argues that there
is no basis for a remand and that she is entitled to an award
of benefits because she meets the requirements for listed
impairments pursuant to 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1,
§§ 12.05(C) and (D). The Commissioner argues that the record
contain inconsistencies and conflicts which require further
administrative review.
After an examination of the record, we agree with the
Commissioner that the record contains inconsistencies and
unresolved issues that preclude an immediate award of benefits.
“Conflicts in the evidence are for the [Commissioner] and not the
courts to resolve.” Newton v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir.
2000). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court reversing
the Commissioner’s decision and remanding the matter for further
administrative proceedings is AFFIRMED. We deem it unnecessary
to resolve the parties’ dispute over the applicable standard of
review.
AFFIRMED.