Uhlmansiek v. Apfel ( 1999 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FEB 8 1999
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
FRED J. UHLMANSIEK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 98-2150
(D.C. No. CIV-97-556-JP/LCS)
KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner, (D. N.M.)
Social Security Administration,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON , KELLY , and LUCERO , 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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 appeals the district court’s affirmance of the Commissioner’s
denial of disability benefits. Plaintiff alleged that he has been disabled since
December 15, 1985, as the result of the residual effects of surgical and radiation
treatment for maxillary sinus cancer. The administrative law judge (ALJ)
determined, at step four of the applicable analysis, that plaintiff remained capable
of performing his past relevant real estate work through the date his insured status
expired, June 30, 1989. The Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ’s
determination the Commissioner’s final decision.
This court reviews the Commissioner’s decision only to determine whether
he applied the law correctly and whether the record contains substantial evidence
to support the decision. See Bean v. Chater, 77 F.3d 1210, 1213 (10th Cir. 1995).
At step four, the claimant has the burden of establishing that he cannot perform
his past relevant work. See Thompson v. Sullivan, 987 F.2d 1482, 1487 (10th
Cir. 1993).
On appeal, plaintiff argues that his real estate work should not be
considered past relevant work, and that the ALJ failed to perform a proper step
four analysis. Upon consideration of the record and the parties’ appellate
arguments, we affirm.
The ALJ properly deemed plaintiff’s real estate work, occurring in 1984
and 1985, past relevant work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1465(a) (relevant work
-2-
experience must be substantial gainful activity); id. § 404.1575 (discussing
relevant factors for determining whether self-employed individual has engaged in
substantial gainful activity, noting that income alone is not determinative). The
ALJ’s decision clearly refers only to plaintiff’s real estate work in 1990-92,
following his cancer treatment, as less than substantial gainful activity.
Further, the ALJ did properly perform a step four analysis, see Winfrey v.
Chater, 92 F.3d 1017, 1023 (10th Cir. 1996), and the record contains substantial
evidence to support the denial of benefits.
The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New
Mexico is, therefore, AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Stephen H. Anderson
Circuit Judge
-3-