Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Tomblin v. Barnhart, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views3 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding an appeal of a denial of Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income benefits. The court affirmed the district court's decision to uphold the denial of benefits. While the appellant claimed on appeal that he was denied the right to counsel before the administrative law judge, the court did not consider this argument since it was not raised at the administrative level or in the district court. The court concluded that issues not raised previously are generally waived.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-08-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-2407

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding an appeal of a denial of Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income benefits. The court affirmed the district court's decision to uphold the denial of benefits. While the appellant claimed on appeal that he was denied the right to counsel before the administrative law judge, the court did not consider this argument since it was not raised at the administrative level or in the district court. The court concluded that issues not raised previously are generally waived.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    4 views3 pages

    Tomblin v. Barnhart, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding an appeal of a denial of Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income benefits. The court affirmed the district court's decision to uphold the denial of benefits. While the appellant claimed on appeal that he was denied the right to counsel before the administrative law judge, the court did not consider this argument since it was not raised at the administrative level or in the district court. The court concluded that issues not raised previously are generally waived.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 04-2407

    DEWEY TOMBLIN,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social
    Security,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of West Virginia, at Huntington.
    Robert C. Chambers,
    District Judge. (CA-03-286-3)

    Submitted:

    August 3, 2005

    Decided:

    August 18, 2005

    Before WILLIAMS and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Dewey Tomblin, Appellant Pro Se. Roxanne Andrews, SOCIAL SECURITY


    ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Dewey

    Tomblin

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    affirming the Commissioner of Social Securitys decision to deny


    him Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income
    benefits.

    On appeal, Tomblin asserts that he was denied the right

    to counsel before the administrative law judge.

    Although Tomblin

    was represented by counsel in the district court, he did not raise


    this issue either before the administrative forum or the lower
    court.
    It is well-settled law that issues raised for the first
    time on appeal generally are not considered by this court.

    See

    Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding
    that issues raised for the first time on appeal are generally
    waived absent exceptional circumstances); Pleasant Valley Hosp.,
    Inc.

    v.

    Shalala,

    32

    F.3d

    67,

    70

    (4th

    Cir.

    1994)

    (it

    is

    inappropriate for courts reviewing appeals of agency decisions to


    consider arguments not raised before the administrative agency
    involved).

    Here, Tomblin submitted a counseled brief in the

    district court that did not raise this issue.


    conclude that Tomblin has waived this claim.
    the district courts order.

    Accordingly, we

    We therefore affirm

    Tomblin v. Barnhart, No. CA-03-286-3

    (S.D. W. Va. Sept. 30, 2004).

    We dispense with oral argument

    because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

    - 2 -

    the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    - 3 -

    You might also like