Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Hugh STEWART, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee
26 F.3d 115
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1994-07-15
- Topic
- bankruptcy
stating that, “[a]s a general principle, this [C]ourt will not address an argument that has not been raised in the district court” | explaining we will not consider an issue the Social Security claimant failed to raise and preserve in the district court | declining to consider claimant's arguments related to the denial of disability benefits because the claimant did not present any of his arguments to the district court | refusing to address an argument not raised in the district court | "As a general principle, this court will not address an argument that has not been raised in the district court." | “As a general principle, this court will not address an argument that has not been raised in the district court.” | “Judicial economy is served and prejudice is avoided by binding the parties to the facts presented and the theories argued below.” | “As a general principle, this court will not address an argument that has not been raised in the district court.” | “As a general principle, this court will not address an argument that has not been raised in the district court.” | “As a general principle, this court will not address an argument that has not been raised in the district court.” | “As a general principle, this court will not ad- dress an argument that has not been raised in the district court.” | “Judicial economy is served and prejudice is avoided by binding the parties to the facts presented and theories argued below.” (in- ternal quotation marks omitted) | “As a general principle, [we] will not address an argument that has not been raised in the district court.” | “As a general principle, [the court of substantial evidence exists, [a court] must…tak[e] into account evidence favorable as well as unfavorable to the [Commissioner’s] decision.” Chester v. Bowen, 792 F.2d 129, 131 (11th Cir. 1986 | “[T]he resolution of factual questions can never be beyond doubt.”
Citator
- Cited by
- 118 opinions
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 involv *116 ing 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.