Morris v. Barnhart ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                                                                           F I L E D
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FEB 12 2003
    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk
    LESA F. MORRIS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.                                                   No. 02-7060
    D.C. No. 01-CV-41-W
    JO ANNE B. BARNHART,                               (E.D. Oklahoma)
    Commissioner of Social Security
    Administration,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT           *
    Before EBEL , BALDOCK , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.
    Lesa F. Morris appeals the denial of her 1995 application for Social
    Security supplemental-income and disability-insurance benefits. Social Security
    regulations implement a five-step sequential process to evaluate a disability
    claim. See Williams v. Bowen , 
    844 F.2d 748
    , 750–52 (10th Cir. 1988) (detailing
    *
    The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument pursuant
    to Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). 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    not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,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.
    steps). As to her claim for benefits for the period between 1993—the onset of her
    alleged disability—until the end of 1994, the administrative law judge (“ALJ”)
    denied benefits at step one of the relevant analysis, concluding that in light of her
    substantial gainful employment during that period, Morris was not disabled     . As
    to her claim for benefits for the period after 1994, the ALJ denied benefits at step
    four, finding that Morris’ residual functional capacity (RFC) was limited only by
    poor visual acuity and that she could return to her past work as a packager, egg
    gatherer, poultry worker, silver wrapper, and cafeteria attendant. Both the
    Appeals Council and the district court affirmed the ALJ’s denial of benefits.
    We exercise jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
     and
    
    42 U.S.C. § 405
    (g). Our review, however, is limited to evaluating whether the
    factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the correct
    legal standards were applied.    Goatcher v. United States Dep’t of Health &
    Human Servs. , 
    52 F.3d 288
    , 289 (10th Cir. 1995). Morris challenges the ALJ’s
    denial of benefits for the period after 1994 on two grounds. First, she contends
    that the ALJ failed to consider her alleged impairments in combination, as
    required by applicable law.     See Hargis v. Sullivan , 
    945 F.2d 1482
    , 1491
    (10th Cir. 1991) (citing 
    42 U.S.C. § 423
    (d)(2)(C)). Second, she argues that the
    ALJ failed properly to assess the credibility of her testimony at the hearing.
    -2-
    In support of these claims, however, Morris essentially contends that the
    medical record shows that her alleged impairments were more serious or severe
    than determined by the ALJ. We may not reweigh the evidence or substitute our
    judgment for that of the agency.   Casias v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.   , 
    933 F.2d 799
    , 800 (10th Cir. 1991). Further, the record does not support Morris’
    assertions that the ALJ failed to view her alleged impairments in combination or
    improperly assessed her credibility. More importantly, Morris does not argue or
    demonstrate that the ALJ erred in his determination of her residual functional
    capacity or in his ultimate conclusion that she could perform her past relevant
    work. Claimant bears the burden at step four to show that she is unable to return
    to her past jobs or occupations.   See Andrade v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.      ,
    
    985 F.2d 1045
    , 1051 (10th Cir. 1993). Because we conclude, based on our
    careful review of the record, that substantial evidence in the record supports the
    ALJ’s ultimate determinations as to Morris’ RFC and her resulting ability to
    work, we must affirm the agency’s denial of benefits. Accordingly, the judgment
    of the district court is AFFIRMED.
    Entered for the Court
    Carlos F. Lucero
    Circuit Judge
    -3-