Hugh STEWART v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
44 soc.sec.rep.ser. 550, unempl.ins.rep. (Cch) P 14018b Hugh Stewart v. Department of Health and Human Services
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion
HATCHETT, Circuit Judge:
Hugh Stewart appeals from the district court’s judgment affirming the denial of his application for disability benefits and supplemental security income pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405 (g), 1383(c)(3). Specifically, Stewart alleges that substantial evidence did not support the Secretary of Health and Human Service’s determination that he was not entitled to disability benefits. The Secretary contends that because Stewart did not file a brief with the district court or specify any grounds in his petition for judicial review, he waived his right to do so on appeal. Alternatively, the Secretary asserts that the administrative record reveals that substantial evidence supported her finding that Stewart is not entitled to disability benefits.
As a general principle, this court will not address an argument that has not been raised in the district court.
Baumann v. Savers Fed. Sav. & Loan Assoc., 934 F.2d 1506, 1510 (11th Cir.1991). “Judicial economy is served and prejudice is avoided by binding the parties to the facts presented and the theories argued below.”
Bliss v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S., 620 F.2d 65, 70 (5th Cir.1980);
also see Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120 , 96 S.Ct. 2868, 2877 , 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976) (“It is the general rule that a federal appellate court does not consider an issue not passed on below”). Although this court may hear an issue not raised in the lower court when the proper resolution is beyond any doubt, issues involv *116 ing the resolution of factual questions can never be beyond doubt.
In re Daikin Miami Overseas, 868 F.2d 1201, 1207 (11th Cir.1989). We can ascertain no reason to deviate from this policy in the present case. Because Stewart did not present any of his assertions in the district court, we decline to consider them on appeal.
Commercial Credit Business Loans, Inc. v. St. Louis Terminal Field Warehouse Co., 514 F.2d 75, 77 (5th Cir.1975).
AFFIRMED.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 15 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(stating that, “[a]s a general principle, this [C]ourt will not address an argument that has not been raised in the district court”)
-
(explaining we will not consider an issue the Social Security claimant failed to raise and preserve in the district court)
-
(declining to consider claimant's arguments related to the denial of disability benefits because the claimant did not present any of his arguments to the district court)
-
(“Judicial economy is served and prejudice is avoided by binding the parties to the facts presented and the theories argued below.”)
-
(“As a general principle, [the court of substantial evidence exists, [a court] must…tak[e] into account evidence favorable as well as unfavorable to the [Commissioner’s] decision.” Chester v. Bowen, 792 F.2d 129, 131 (11th Cir. 1986)
-
(“[T]he resolution of factual questions can never be beyond doubt.”)
Cited by 175 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Craig Smith v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner
- Timothy Eugene Plier v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner
- Angela Ruckh v. Salus Rehabilitation, LLC
- Debbie Moore v. Commissioner of Social Security
- James E. Robinson v. Michael J. Astrue
- Julia Anglin v. Social Security Administration
Most recent
- Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable
- U.S. All Star Federation, Inc. v. Open Cheer & Dance Championship Series, LLC
- Jada Orr v. Calavan Kia of West Atlanta
- Great Bowery Inc. v. Consequence Sound LLC
- Christie Latonya Ellis v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security
- Hadley v. Bisignano
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.