Vogel v. Barnhart , 110 F. App'x 867 ( 2004 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
OCT 22 2004
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
NANCY A. VOGEL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 04-7030
(D.C. No. 03-CV-157-W)
JO ANNE B. BARNHART, (E.D. Okla.)
Commissioner, Social Security
Administration,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before LUCERO , McKAY , and PORFILIO , Circuit Judges.
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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
In 2001, Nancy A. Vogel applied for disability benefits, alleging that she
was unable to work as a result of pins in her right ankle, a rod in her right knee,
and a broken back. The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
found that Vogel suffers from impairments in her leg and her back but that she is
not disabled because she retains sufficient residual functional capacity to perform
certain jobs within the national economy. The district court 1 upheld this decision.
Vogel appeals, contending that the Commissioner’s decision was erroneous
because (1) the administrative law judge (ALJ) failed to acknowledge her
shoulder impairment and failed to include this impairment in his hypothetical
question to the vocational expert and (2) the ALJ considered improper factors in
evaluating her credibility.
“We review the district court’s decision de novo,” see Briggs ex rel. Briggs
v. Massanari, 248 F.3d 1235, 1237 (10th Cir. 2001), and examine the underlying
denial of benefits to determine “whether the factual findings are supported by
substantial evidence in the record as a whole and whether the correct legal
standards were applied,” Howard v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 945, 947 (10th Cir. 2004).
Having reviewed the briefs, the record, and the applicable law pursuant to these
standards, we conclude that the Commissioner did not err and that the district
1
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c).
-2-
court properly upheld the denial of benefits. We therefore AFFIRM the
challenged decision for the reasons stated by the district court in its Order of
January 20, 2004.
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-3-