NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 11a0074n.06 No. 09-2491 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

RA ND Y W . BRISTO L , Plaintif f-Appellant , v. CO M M ISSI ON ER

OF SOC IA L SEC URITY , Defendant-

Appellee

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON A PP E A L FROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO URT F OR

TH E E AST ERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

O P I N I O N

BEF ORE: NO RRIS, CO LE, and K ETHL ED G E, C ir c uitJudg e s. P ER CURIAM . Plaintiff-Appellant Randy Br istol seeks review

of the d i s trict court’ s judgme nt affir

ming the de cision of an Administra t ive L aw Judge (“A L J ”), who denied B ristol’s reque st for social se curity disability benef its. W e AF F IRM

. This Court review s the district court’s c onclusion in a social sec urity case de novo. Valley v. Comm’r of Soc . Sec. , 427 F.3d 388, 390 ( 6th Cir. 2005). Unde r 42 U.S.C. § 405(g ), our r eview of the Commissioner’s dec ision is l imited to determinin g wh et h erthe finding s are supported by

su bs tanti a l e vid e nc e and

wh e the r t

he c or re c t le g a l st and ard s w e re a pplie d. We h ave c are fu lly revie wed the pa

rties’ brie fs, the a d minist rative r ecor d, the applica ble law, a nd the district court’s order g rantingsummary

judgme nt in favor of the Commissioner. We ag ree that substantial evidence supports the AL J ’s finding s that Br istol does not mee t or equal the sever ity require ments of L istingNo. 09-2491

Randy Bristol v. Comm’r of Soc. Se c.

- 2 - 12.05(C) and is not disabled. Be cause the di strict court’s decision is well reasoned, we find no need to expand on its analy sis as to this claim. Br istol also contends that the AL J viol at ed 20 C .F.R. § 404.1527(d) by failingto give appropr iate we ight to Dr . Sommerschield’s medica l opinion that Bristol was “f unctioning consistent l y i n t el lectually and ac ademica lly

within the mildl y

reta rded r ang e of intellig ence .” (Admin. R. at 21.) The r egulation provides that the AL J wi l l gen er al l y g ive more w eig ht to the opinion of an examining doc tor than to t h at of a doc tor who has not examined the cla imant. 20 C.F .R. § 4 04 .1 52 7( d) (1 ). Ho we ve r, the AL J fou nd B ri sto l di sa

ble d b a se d o n h is l a c k o f d e fi c its in adaptive f unctionin g, not his int ellectua l and ac ademic a biliti es. (Admin. R. at 18.) We find that the AL J ’s finding s are consistent with Dr. Sommers ch i el d ’s o p inion, and further analy sis of the weig ht give n that opinion is t here fore unnece ssary . Finally , Br istol has raised two due- proce ss claims relate d to the AL J ’s decision not to reopen a prior de cision and the a dequac y of the proc edure s provided at the he aringon that prior dec ision. Br istol first raised these due-pr ocess claims to the district c ourt in his mot ion for summary judgme nt and did not include them in his complaint or seek leave to f ile an ame nded complaint asse rtingthe claims. Althoug h we have occa sionally found a complaint to be constructively amende d when the parties have agree d, even implicitly , to fully litigate an i ssue not raised in the original plea dings, see Stem l er v. C i t

y of Florence , 126 F.3d 856, 872 ( 6th Cir. 1997), no such construc tive amendment

occur red in this case . The Com missioner did not addre ss the due-proce ss claims in his cross-motion for summary judgme nt, a nd the district c ourt declined to a ddress the issue. B r is t o l v. Astr ue , No. 2:08-CV-13028, 2009 WL3210928, at *5 n.5 (E.D. Mic h. Sept. 30, 2009). As a r esult, Br istol’sNo. 09-2491

Randy Bristol v. Comm’r of Soc. Se c.

- 3 - due-pr ocess claims are not proper ly befor e thi s Court on appea l, and we decline to hear them. See Tuc k e r v . U nio n o f Ne e dle tra de

s, In du s. &Te

x tile Em ps . , 407 F.3d 784, 787- 89 (6th Cir. 2005). There fore , we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summar y judgme nt to the Comm issioner for the r easons state d above a nd in the district court’s opinion.