Sharp v. Chater ( 1996 )


Menu:
  •                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    Filed 9/17/96
    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
    LAVEDA SHARP,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.                                                   No. 95-6397
    (D.C. No. CIV-93-671-L)
    SHIRLEY S. CHATER, Commissioner                      (W.D. Okla.)
    of Social Security, *
    Defendant-Appellee.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT **
    Before BRORBY, BARRETT, and EBEL, 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
    *
    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, however, 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    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
    argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is
    therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
    Plaintiff-appellant LaVeda Sharp (claimant) appeals from the district
    court’s affirmance of the Secretary’s denial of supplemental security income.
    Claimant asserts that she has been disabled since suffering work-related injuries
    to her back, neck and right shoulder in September 1987. Following a hearing, the
    administrative law judge (ALJ) determined, at step four of the applicable
    five-step sequential analysis, 
    20 C.F.R. § 416.920
    ; see also Williams v. Bowen,
    
    844 F.2d 748
    , 750-51 (10th Cir. 1988), that claimant remained capable of
    performing her past work as a waitress and a sewing machine operator. The
    Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ’s determination the final
    decision of the Secretary.
    This court reviews the Secretary’s decision to insure that there is
    substantial evidence supporting the factual findings and that the Secretary
    correctly applied the law. Bean v. Chater, 
    77 F.3d 1210
    , 1213 (10th Cir. 1995).
    On appeal, claimant specifically argues that the Secretary erred in determining
    that claimant retained the residual functional capacity to perform her past relevant
    work. See generally Henrie v. United States Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 
    13 F.3d 359
    , 360 (10th Cir. 1993)(claimant bears burden of establishing that she
    cannot return to her past relevant work).
    -2-
    Upon careful review, however, we determine that the record does contain
    substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s finding that claimant could still
    perform her past work. In reaching this decision, the ALJ properly considered
    claimant’s subjective complaints of disabling pain. See Kepler v. Chater, 
    68 F.3d 387
    , 390-91 (10th Cir. 1995)(discussing proper consideration of complaints of
    disabling pain). Further, there is no reason apparent from this record for this
    court not to defer to the ALJ’s credibility determinations. See, e.g.,Winfrey v.
    Chater, No. 95-7139, 
    1996 WL 444144
    , at * 2 (10th Cir. Aug. 7, 1996).
    Because the record contains substantial evidence supporting the Secretary’s
    factual findings and because we find no legal error, we AFFIRM the denial of
    benefits.
    Entered for the Court
    David M. Ebel
    Circuit Judge
    -3-