Thompson v. Apfel

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
APR 30 1999
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
ELMO LOUISE THOMPSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 98-5108
(D.C. No. 96-CV-874-E)
KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner, (N.D. Okla.)
Social Security Administration,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY , EBEL , 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) and 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
Claimant Elmo L. Thompson appeals from the district court’s order
affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her
applications for disability and supplemental security income benefits. Agency
regulations establish a five-step sequential analysis to evaluate disability claims.
See Williams v. Bowen , 844 F.2d 748, 750-52 (10th Cir. 1988) (describing five
steps in detail). Here, the administrative law judge (ALJ) reached step five of the
analysis, relying on the Medical-Vocational Guidelines (the “Grids”) to determine
that claimant was disabled as of her 55th birthday, but not before that date.
Claimant filed suit in district court; the court affirmed the agency’s denial
of benefits. Our jurisdiction over this appeal arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 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 the ALJ should have concluded that she
was disabled before her 55th birthday. She argues that: 1) the ALJ improperly
relied on the Grids in the presence of evidence supporting her allegations of a
severe mental impairment; 2) the ALJ’s analysis of her allegations of pain and his
credibility determination were improper because not supported by the record or
-2-
based on an incomplete record; and 3) the agency failed to meet its burden at step
five to demonstrate that claimant could perform a full range of light work.
After careful review of the record on appeal and consideration of
claimant’s arguments in light of the applicable legal standards, we conclude that
substantial evidence supports the agency’s decision and that the ALJ applied the
correct legal standards. Further, we conclude the district court correctly decided
this case. Therefore, for substantially the same reasons set forth in the district
court’s order, dated April 20, 1998, the judgment of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
David M. Ebel
Circuit Judge
-3-