Mann v. Astrue , 314 F. App'x 141 ( 2009 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
February 24, 2009
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
RICKY J. MANN,
Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 08-1084
(D.C. No. 1:06-CV-02015-MSK)
v. (D. Colo.)
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before O’BRIEN, McCONNELL, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.
As of January 26, 2001, Ricky J. Mann was adjudicated disabled and
awarded benefits. This case involves an earlier application for Social Security
disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits for a closed period
of disability from July 17, 1999, through January 25, 2001. Mann appeals from
*
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 This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and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. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent
with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
the district court’s oral ruling affirming the Commissioner’s denial of benefits
only for that temporally finite period.
In December 1996, Mann suffered an on-the-job injury. He applied for
benefits in the fall of 1999, alleging an inability to work since July 17, 1999, due
to back, neck, and shoulder pain; headaches; numbness and tingling in both arms;
pain radiating into both arms from his neck; pain radiating into both legs; and
constant pain and stiffness. The agency denied his applications initially and on
reconsideration, and on January 25, 2001, the ALJ issued a decision denying
benefits. Mann submitted additional evidence, and on September 28, 2001, the
ALJ issued an amended decision denying benefits. The Appeals Council
considered both decisions and denied Mann’s request for review. He then sought
judicial review, and the district court remanded the case for further administrative
proceedings. After the remand, the ALJ held a hearing and, on April 13, 2006,
denied benefits at step four of the applicable five-step sequential evaluation
process. See Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750-52 & 751 n.2 (10th Cir. 1988)
(describing five-step process and explaining that at steps one through four the
claimant bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case of disability). The
ALJ concluded Mann suffered from severe impairments (degenerative disc disease
of the cervical and thoracic spine, hypertension, and Hepatitis C), but that his
residual functional capacity during the relevant time period “did not prevent him
from performing his past relevant work.” Aplt. App., Vol. II at 398. The ALJ
-2-
also found Mann “not entirely credible.” Id. at 392. The Appeals Council denied
Mann’s request for review. This appeal followed the district court’s oral ruling
affirming the agency decision. 1
Mann raises the same issues here as raised in the district court, viz.: (1) the
ALJ did not apply the correct legal standards in evaluating the opinion of treating
physician Jennifer Pentecost; (2) substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s
determination that Mann’s subjective complaints were not entirely credible; and
(3) the ALJ did not apply the correct legal standards in concluding that Mann
could perform his past relevant work.
We review the Commissioner’s decision to determine whether
the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence in the
record and whether the correct legal standards were applied.
Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It requires more
than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance. We consider whether
the ALJ followed the specific rules of law that must be followed in
weighing particular types of evidence in disability cases, but we will
not reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for the
Commissioner’s.
Lax v. Astrue, 489 F.3d 1080, 1084 (10th Cir. 2007) (citations and quotations
omitted).
Mann’s arguments fail. In an remarkably well-reasoned oral ruling, the
district judge thoroughly analyzed and rejected each of Mann’s challenges to the
ALJ’s decision using the same standard that governs our review. We cannot
1
Our jurisdiction arises under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
-3-
improve upon her excellent summary and analysis and, therefore, adopt it. The
Commissioner’s conclusion that Mann was not disabled between July 17, 1999,
and January 25, 2001, was the product of a correct application of the law and
supported by substantial record evidence.
We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court for substantially the same
reasons as stated in its January 29, 2008, oral ruling.
Entered for the Court
Terrence L. O’Brien
Circuit Judge
-4-