* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-30143

Summary Calendar

STELLA MANION

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:05-CV-2123

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Stella Manion appeals a summary judgment for the Commissioner of the

Social Security Administration’s denial of her claim for disability insurance

benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-34. Manion

does not challenge whether the Commissioner’s decision is supported by

substantial evidence. Instead, she maintains the Administrative Law Judge

(ALJ) did not properly develop the record and committed procedural errors by:

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 3, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-30143

2

sending treating physicians follow-up interrogatories; and ordering a

consultative examination from a non-treating physician. 

In applying for disability insurance benefits, Manion claimed disability

due to fibromyalgia, neuropathy, acid reflux, gall stones, and high blood

pressure. After the Commissioner denied her application, Manion requested,

and received, an administrative hearing. She submitted five medical

assessments from her treating physicians to the ALJ for review. The ALJ then

sent each treating physician a request for supporting documentation. In

addition, the ALJ solicited a non-treating physician to perform a consultative

examination upon Manion. 

The ALJ held: Manion was not under a “disability”, as defined in the

Social Security Act; and she retained the residual functional capability to, inter

alia, continue her past work as a beautician. The Appeals Council denied

Manion’s request for review, leaving the ALJ’s decision to stand as the final

decision of the Commissioner.

Procedural perfection is not required in administrative proceedings;

accordingly, we “will not vacate a judgment unless the substantial rights of a

party have been affected”. Mays v. Bowen, 837 F.2d 1362, 1364 (5th Cir. 1988);

see also Morris v. Bowen, 864 F.2d 333, 335 (5th Cir. 1988). 

Essentially for the reasons stated by the district court, summary judgment

was proper. An ALJ may contact a treating physician to obtain clarification of

a previously submitted medical report. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(e). Additionally,

when a consultative examination is ordered, it is not mandatory that it be

performed by a treating physician. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1519h. 
No. 07-30143

3

The assertion that the ALJ did not properly develop the record was not

raised in district court. Accordingly, it is waived. E.g., Leverette v. Louisville

Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999) (“This Court will not consider an

issue that a party fails to raise in the district court absent extraordinary

circumstances . . . .”).

AFFIRMED.