Waterdown v. Apfel

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUL 31 1998
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
JOHN L. WATERDOWN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 97-5214
(D.C. No. 96-CV-396-W)
KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner, (N.D. Okla.)
Social Security Administration,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA and McKAY, Circuit Judges, and BROWN, ** Senior District
Judge.
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
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
**
Honorable Wesley E. Brown, Senior District Judge, United States District
Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation.
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Claimant John L. Waterdown appeals from the district court’s order
affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying his
application for Supplemental Security Income Benefits under Title XVI of the
Social Security Act. Claimant applied for benefits in 1994, alleging disability as
of May 4, 1994, as a result of nervousness, shortness of breath, arthritis, and
dizziness. Claimant’s request for benefits was denied administratively and upon
reconsideration.
A hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ) resulted in a decision
that claimant was not disabled. Agency regulations establish a five-part test to
determine disability under the Social Security Act. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920;
Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750-52 (10th Cir. 1988) (discussing five steps
in detail). In this case, the ALJ reached step five of the analysis, determining
that, while claimant could not return to his past work, he was capable of work
available in the national economy. The Appeals Council denied review, and
claimant filed suit in federal district court. The magistrate judge’s order affirmed
the agency’s decision to deny claimant benefits. 1
1
The parties consented to proceed before the magistrate judge pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). Accordingly, our jurisdiction over this appeals arises
(continued...)
-2-
Our review of the agency’s decision is limited to determining whether the
decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole and whether
the correct legal standards were applied. See Castellano v. Secretary of Health &
Human Servs., 26 F.3d 1027, 1028 (10th Cir. 1994). On appeal, claimant
contends that 1) the ALJ’s residual functional capacity assessment reflects errors
in his review of the medical records, lacks evidentiary support, and fails to
properly identify evidence in support of his determination that claimant’s
testimony was not credible, and 2) the ALJ’s step five determination that claimant
could perform work in the national economy is based on vocational testimony
elicited by an incomplete hypothetical question.
After consideration of the arguments presented, and after careful review of
the record on appeal, we conclude that the district court correctly decided this
case. Therefore, for substantially the same reasons set forth in the magistrate
1
(...continued)
under § 636(c)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
-3-
judge’s order dated September 17, 1997, the judgment of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Wesley E. Brown
Senior District Judge
-4-