Case Name: Donald R. LeBLANC, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. William A. HALTER, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-12-03
Citations: 22 F. App'x 28
Docket Number: No. 01-1546
Parties: Donald R. LeBLANC, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. William A. HALTER, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 22
Pages: 28–29

Head Matter:
Donald R. LeBLANC, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. William A. HALTER, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant, Appellee.
No. 01-1546.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Dec. 3, 2001.
Francis X. Quinn, Jr., and Boynton, Waldron, Doleac, Woodman & Scott, P.A., on brief, for appellant.
James B. Farmer, United States Attorney, and Anita Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief, for appellee.
Before BOUDIN, Chief Judge, TORRUELLA and LIPEZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Donald R. LeBlanc appeals from a district court decision upholding the determination by an administrative law judge ("ALJ") that LeBlanc was entitled only to a closed period of Social Security disability benefits due to a back condition. We affirm, essentially for the reasons given by District Judge George O'Toole in his well-written Memorandum and Order dated February 5, 2001. We add only the following comments.
First, in arguing that the ALJ erred in her decision, LeBlanc relies in part on medical evidence he submitted to the Appeals Council, but not to the ALJ. As a recent decision by this court indicates, in reviewing an ALJ decision, we do not consider such new evidence that was never presented to the ALJ. See Mills v. Apfel, 244 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir.2001), pet. for cert. filed (Aug. 29, 2001) (No. 01-6108) (stating that the court would review an ALJ decision "solely on the evidence presented to the ALJ"). Second, we have considered the Appeals Council's denial of review in light of that evidence. See id. (indicating a denial of review by the Appeals Council may be reviewable if it "gives an egregiously mistaken ground for this action"). But we conclude that the Appeals Council reasonably denied review because of the sporadic nature of any impairment caused by LeBlanc's cervical herniation, which was eventually addressed by surgery. See Chester v. Callahan, 193 F.3d 10, 12 (1st Cir.1999) (affirming district court judgment upholding denial of benefits where the "disabling nature" of the claimant's condition had not lasted for 12 months).
Affirmed.