Message
×
loading..

Jones v. Chater ( 1997 )


Menu:
  •                                                                         F I L E D
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    APR 2 1997
    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk
    MARQUIS L. JONES,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.                                                 No. 96-5151
    (D.C. No. 95-C-474-W)
    SHIRLEY S. CHATER,                                 (N.D. Okla.)
    Commissioner, Social Security
    Administration, *
    Defendant-Appellee.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT **
    Before BRORBY and KELLY, Circuit Judges, and CAUTHRON, *** District
    Judge.
    *
    Effective March 31, 1995, the functions of the Secretary of Health and
    Human Services in social security cases were transferred to the Commissioner of
    Social Security. P.L. No. 103-296. In the text we continue to refer to the
    Secretary because she was the appropriate party at the time of the underlying
    administrative decision.
    **
    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
    doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
    generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
    and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
    ***
    Honorable Robin J. Cauthron, District Judge, United States District Court
    for the Western District of Oklahoma, sitting by designation.
    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
    argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is
    therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
    Claimant Marquis L. Jones appeals from the order of the magistrate judge
    affirming the Secretary of Health and Human Services’ denial of his application
    for supplemental security income benefits (SSI). 1 Claimant, a thirty-four-year-old
    man with a GED, claims disability from June 1992, due to back pain and
    depression.
    Claimant’s application for SSI benefits was denied initially and on
    reconsideration. Following a hearing, the administrative law judge (ALJ) denied
    claimant’s application at step five of the sequential process applied to determine
    disability. See Williams v. Bowen, 
    844 F.2d 748
    , 750-51 (10th Cir. 1988)
    (setting forth the five steps in detail). The ALJ found that although claimant
    could not return to his past relevant work as a machinist helper or a truck driver,
    he retained the residual functional capacity to perform a full range of sedentary,
    light, and medium work. The district court affirmed the decision of the Secretary,
    and claimant appeals.
    1
    By consent of the parties, this matter was assigned to a magistrate judge for
    adjudication. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 73.
    -2-
    Our review of the Secretary’s decision is limited to determining whether
    the decision is supported by substantial evidence and whether the Secretary
    applied correct legal standards. See Castellano v. Secretary of Health & Human
    Servs., 
    26 F.3d 1027
    , 1028 (10th Cir. 1994). “To find that the Secretary’s
    decision is supported by substantial evidence, there must be sufficient relevant
    evidence in the record that a reasonable person might deem adequate to support
    the ultimate conclusion.” Bernal v. Bowen, 
    851 F.2d 297
    , 299 (10th Cir. 1988).
    However, we may neither reweigh the evidence nor substitute our judgment for
    that of the Secretary. See 
    id.
    An individual is disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act
    only if his impairments are so severe that he “is not only unable to do his previous
    work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in
    any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy.”
    
    42 U.S.C. § 423
    (d)(2)(A). If a claimant meets his burden of proving that he
    cannot return to his past work, the burden shifts to the Secretary to show that the
    claimant can perform other jobs in the national economy. Ray v. Bowen, 
    865 F.2d 222
    , 224 (10th Cir. 1989).
    On appeal, claimant argues that (1) the ALJ’s evaluation of claimant’s
    mental impairment on the Psychiatric Review Technique Form was not supported
    by the evidence; (2) the ALJ erred in concluding that claimant’s mental
    -3-
    impairment was not severe; (3) the ALJ failed to adequately develop the record as
    to claimant’s I.Q.; and (4) the ALJ failed to adequately develop the record as to
    claimant’s mental impairment. The only issue claimant raised to the district court
    was his contention that the ALJ failed to adequately develop the record as to his
    mental impairment. Because our scope of review is limited to those issues
    properly preserved and presented to the district court, the remaining issues are
    deemed waived. See Crow v. Shalala, 
    40 F.3d 323
    , 324 (10th Cir. 1994) The
    parties are familiar with the underlying facts, and we will not restate them here.
    Where the evidence presented to the ALJ reveals that the claimant suffers
    from a mental disorder, but contains insufficient medical evidence to evaluate the
    disorder and its effects on the claimant’s ability to work, the ALJ has a duty to
    further develop the record. See Carter v. Chater, 
    73 F.3d 1019
    , 1021-22 (10th
    Cir. 1996). Here, the record contains objective evidence supporting claimant’s
    contention that he suffers from depression. Therefore, the ALJ had a duty to, and
    did, develop the record concerning claimant’s depression. See 
    id. at 1022
    .
    The ALJ fulfilled his duty to develop the record by obtaining additional
    medical records as to material issues which came to his attention during the
    hearing testimony. See Carter, 
    73 F.3d at 1022
    . In conclusion, as developed, the
    record contained sufficient medical evidence to evaluate claimant’s mental
    disorder.
    -4-
    The judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District
    of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.
    Entered for the Court
    Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
    Circuit Judge
    -5-