Germaine Thomas v. SSA, No. 13-30121 (5th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 13-30121 Document: 00512372877 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/13/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED September 13, 2013 No. 13-30121 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk GERMAINE AMELIA THOMAS, Plaintiff Appellant, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:11-CV-2290 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Plaintiff Appellant Germaine Amelia Thomas appeals the district court s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant Appellee Social Security Administration (SSA) in her judicial challenge to the Commissioner of Social Security s administrative denial of her application for supplemental security income payments under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. On appeal, Thomas, who is represented by counsel, alleges only that the administrative law * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Case: 13-30121 Document: 00512372877 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/13/2013 No. 13-30121 judge (ALJ) improperly weighed the opinion of a state agency medical consultant in determining Thomas s residual functional capacity. Our careful review of the record reveals that Thomas nowhere made this argument before the district court. It is familiar law that a party who wishes to preserve an argument for appeal must raise the argument to such a degree that the district court has an opportunity to rule on it. 1 Because Thomas failed to raise the argument that the ALJ improperly weighed the consultant s opinion in the district court, the district court had no opportunity to rule on it. Accordingly, Thomas s sole argument is waived. * * * AFFIRMED. 1 FDIC v. Mijalis, 15 F.3d 1314, 1327 (5th Cir. 1994). 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.