HUGH STEWART, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
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 involving 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Crawford v. Comm'r OF Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155 (11th Cir. 2004)…discussed above. Finally, we need not address Crawford’s contention that the ALJ’s hypothetical question to the VE was inadequate because Crawford failed to raise this issue in the district court. See Stewart v. Dept. of Health and Human Services, 26 F. 3d 115, 115-16 (11th Cir.1994) (stating that “[a]s a general principle, this Court will not address an argument that has not been raised in the district court”). In any event, the ALJ was not required to include findings in the hypothetical that the ALJ ha…
-
Resolution Tr. Corp. v. Dunmar Corp. & Michael D. Jones, 43 F.3d 587 (11th Cir. 1995)…3 (1992); Caban-Wheeler v. Elsea, 904 F. 2d 1549, 1557 (11th Cir.1990). “ ‘Judicial economy is served and prejudice is avoided by binding the parties to the facts presented and the theories argued below.’ ” Stewart v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 26 F. 3d 115 (11th Cir.1994) (quoting Bliss v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S., 620 F. 2d 65, 70 (5th Cir.1980)). Where the record supports a legal argument raised for the first time, an appellate court may exercise its discretion to address the issue where…
-
Ligia Pacheco de Perez v. AT&T Co., 139 F.3d 1368 (11th Cir. 1998)…consider issues not reached by the district court, especially where the issues involve questions of fact. See, e.g., Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 2877, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976); Stewart v. Department of Health and Human Serv., 26 F. 3d 115, 115-16 (11th Cir.1994). This rule is pragmatic in nature, however, and is “not a jurisdictional limitation.” Ochran v. United States, 117 F. 3d 495, 502 (11th Cir.1997) ("[Although the general rule is that we do not address arguments that were no…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1976)
- Bliss v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y OF the United States, 620 F.2d 65 (5th Cir. 1980)
- United States v. Singer, 868 F.2d 1201 (10th Cir. 1989)
- Commercial Credit Bus. Loans, Inc. v. ST. Louis Terminal Field Warehouse Co., 514 F.2d 75 (5th Cir. 1975)