Evans v. Barnhart

*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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
March 8, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-40654
Summary Calendar
WANDA EVANS,
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, Tyler Division
USDC No. 6:04-CV-509
--------------------
Before DAVIS, JOLLY and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Wanda Evans appeals the dismissal of her suit for social
security benefits. The district court dismissed her appeal for
failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The record before
the district court, which has since been supplemented on appeal,
did not include Ms. Evans’ prior petition for Appeals Council
review or her prior appeal to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas. The Commissioner concedes

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 05-40654
-2-
2
that based on the supplemented record, that dismissal of Evans’
complaint for lack of exhaustion was improper.
However, the supplemented record also reveals that Evans has
already received judicial review of the May 19, 1994 decision of
the ALJ that is being appealed in this case. All elements for
application of res judicata to her present suit have been
satisfied. The prior decision was between the same parties,
judgment was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, the
judgment was final and on the merits and the plaintiff raises the
same cause of action. Russell v. SunAmerica Securities, Inc.,
962 F.2d 1169, 1172 (5th Cir. 1992). We are free to decide this
case on the basis of res judicata despite the fact that this
defense was not raised before the district court because all of
the relevant facts are contained in the record and are
uncontroverted. Id. See also Wooten v. Pumpkin Air, Inc., 869
F.2d 848, 850 n.1 (5th Cir. 1989)(“When the judgment of the
district court is correct, it may be affirmed on appeal for
reasons other than those asserted or relied on below.") citing
Terrell v. University of Texas System Police, 792 F.2d 1360, 1362
n. 3 (5th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1064, 107 S. Ct. 948,
93 L. Ed. 2d 997 (1987).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --