¶1 Dorothy T. Johnson appeals, pro se, the affirmance of the Social Security Commissioner’s decision to terminate her disability insurance benefits and supplemental social security income. The Commissioner determined that, post-surgery Johnson had undergone medical improvement. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(f). Johnson contends this determination was not based upon substantial evidence. (Johnson also claims the Administrative Law Judge was not presented with a complete copy of her medical records. We decline to consider this claim because it is raised for the first time on appeal. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1138, 120 S.Ct. 982, 145 L.Ed.2d 932 (2000).)
¶2*345 Our review of the Commissioner’s decision “is limited to determining whether that decision is supported by substantial evidence and whether the proper legal standards were applied”. Ripley v. Chater, 67 F.3d 552, 555 (5th Cir.1995). “Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, less than a preponderance, and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Martinez v. Chater, 64 F.3d 172, 173 (5th Cir.1995) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
¶3 Johnson’s contentions are unavailing. There was substantial evidence to support the Commissioner’s medical improvement decision.
¶4 AFFIRMED