Lewis v. Apfel

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
NOV 6 1998
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
EDWARD H. LEWIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 97-5224
(D.C. No. 96-CV-523-B)
KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner, (N.D. Okla.)
Social Security Administration,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before PORFILIO, BARRETT, and KELLY , 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) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
Claimant Edward H. Lewis appeals the district court’s order 1 affirming the
Commissioner’s decision to deny his application for supplemental security income
benefits. The Commissioner determined that Mr. Lewis could perform a limited
range of light work available in significant numbers in the national economy and,
therefore, he is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. Mr.
Lewis contends (1) the Commissioner’s decision is not supported by substantial
evidence, (2) the Commissioner failed to evaluate properly his allegations of
disabling pain, and (3) the Commissioner erred in holding that he can perform
light work. We affirm.
We review the Commissioner’s decision to determine whether it is
supported by substantial evidence and whether correct legal standards were
applied. See Hawkins v. Chater, 113 F.3d 1162, 1164 (10th Cir. 1997).
Substantial evidence is “‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” Soliz v. Chater, 82 F.3d 373, 375
(10th Cir. 1996) (quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)
(further quotation omitted)). We may neither reweigh the evidence nor substitute
our judgment for that of the Commissioner. See Casias v. Secretary of Health &
Human Servs., 933 F.2d 799, 800 (10th Cir. 1991).
1
The parties proceeded before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636.
-2-
We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal, as well as the briefs
submitted by the parties. Applying the standards set out above, we affirm the
denial of benefits for substantially the reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s
September 22, 1997 recommendation, as adopted by the district court.
The judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
John C. Porfilio
Circuit Judge
-3-