Lennix v. Apfel

1 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-31244
Summary Calendar
CECILE A. LENNIX,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 98-CV-2296-LLM
--------------------
August 4, 2000
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Cecile A. Lennix appeals from the grant of summary judgment
for the Commissioner of Social Security in her action for judicial
review of the Commissioner’s decision denying her application for
disability benefits for the period after July 11, 1995. Lennix
contends that the Commissioner’s decision was not supported by
substantial evidence; that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
ignored evidence she submitted; and that she was deprived of due
process.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
The Commissioner’s decision was supported by substantial
evidence. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 390 (1971).
Lennix’s depression (the basis for an award of benefits for the
period ending July 11, 1995) had been treated successfully by July
11, 1995, and her medication ultimately was discontinued; her
diabetes, diagnosed after July 1995, was under control with
medication; and her respiratory condition and associated bloating
were under control with medication. Lennix’s contention regarding
the records she submitted is unavailing –- the administrative
record, which supported the Commissioner’s determination, contained
all but one of the documents about which Lennix now complains.
That document added no support to Lennix’s disability claim.
Finally, the Due Process Clause does not require that each and
every claim receive a full hearing before a judge at each step of
review.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --