Bartholomew v. Massanari ( 2001 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-31338
Summary Calendar
ELAINE BARTHOLOMEW,
as next friend Dagny Mahaffey,
as next friend Shirlaine Mitchell,
minors,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LARRY G. MASSANARI,
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 00-CV-50-J
--------------------
August 6, 2001
Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Elaine Bartholomew appeals from the district court’s
judgment affirming the denial of her claim for surviving child
benefits. She argues that substantial evidence did not support
the Commissioner’s decision, the administrative law judge (ALJ)
failed to develop the record, the ALJ did not properly weigh the
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-31338
-2-
evidence, and the ALJ improperly placed a high burden of proof on
the claimants.
Judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision to deny
benefits is limited to determining whether that decision is
supported by substantial evidence and whether the proper legal
standards are applied. Harris v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 413, 417 (5th
Cir. 2000); Stone v. Heckler, 715 F.2d 179, 180-81, 184 (5th Cir.
1983). “The [Commissioner], not the courts, has the duty to
weigh the evidence, resolve material conflicts in the evidence,
and decide the case.” Chaparro v. Bowen, 815 F.2d 1008, 1011
(5th Cir. 1987).
Given the evidence that the Arizona resident had used the
name and social security number of Curtis Clifford Mahaffey since
at least 1985 and Judy Griffen’s corroborating identification of
her brother, which dates back to Mahaffey’s childhood, there were
credible evidentiary choices supporting the ALJ’s decision.
Harris, 209 F.3d at 417. Although the Commissioner could have
investigated the matter further, there was credible substantial
evidence upon which the Commissioner could conclude that the
Arizona resident was the true owner of the disputed social
security number, and Bartholomew has failed to demonstrate that
the additional evidence might have altered the result. Carey v.
Apfel, 230 F.3d 131, 142 (5th Cir. 2000). “In short, there is
conflicting evidence on the issue . . ., and the [ALJ’s]
determination must be respected because it is supported by
substantial credible evidence.” See Ryan v. Bowen, 799 F.2d 147,
No. 00-31338
-3-
148 (5th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, the judgment of the district
court is AFFIRMED.