Gibbs v. Apfel ( 1999 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAY 4 1999
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
DONALD GIBBS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 98-5141
(D.C. No. 97-CV-464-M)
KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner, (N.D. Okla.)
Social Security Administration,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA , BARRETT , and MURPHY , 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
Plaintiff Donald Gibbs appeals from an order of the district court affirming
the Commissioner’s determination that he is not entitled to Title XVI Social
Security benefits. We affirm.
We review the Commissioner’s decision to determine whether his factual
findings were supported by substantial evidence in light of the entire record and
to determine whether he applied the correct legal standards. See Castellano v.
Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 26 F.3d 1027, 1028 (10th Cir. 1994).
“Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (quotations omitted). In the course of
our review, we may “neither reweigh the evidence nor substitute our judgment for
that of the agency.” Casias v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 933 F.2d 799,
800 (10th Cir. 1991).
Mr. Gibbs alleged disability as of July 1, 1989, due to a nervous disorder
and chest and back pain . The administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that
Mr. Gibbs was not disabled at step five of the five-step sequential process, see
Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750-52 (10th Cir. 1988), as he could perform
light work.
On appeal, Mr. Gibbs argues that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate his
pain and physical impairments and failed to consider the vocational impact of his
impairments at step five. He also asserts that the ALJ failed to show he could
-2-
perform a significant number of jobs because the hypothetical question did not
correctly reflect his impairments of pain and limited mobility.
While Mr. Gibbs alleges disability as of 1989, the record shows that he first
saw a physician in 1994 after he injured his back. That injury was diagnosed as a
soft tissue injury. He related his pain as ranging from two to four on a scale of
ten with ten being the worse. He takes no pain medication. He has had hand
tremors since the age of twelve which have been diagnosed as a familial essential
tremor. Mr. Gibbs’ IQ is 84 which places him in the low average range of mental
ability. No physician has placed any restrictions on Mr. Gibbs’ ability to work,
although he has been restricted to lifting only twenty-five pounds. While he has
some deficits in his range of motion , these have been attributed to his obesity.
His chest pain was determined to probably be a smooth muscle spasm.
Mr. Gibbs’ arguments are without merit. The judgment of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED for
substantially the reasons set forth in its order of June 16, 1998.
Entered for the Court
Deanell Reece Tacha
Circuit Judge
-3-