McDaniel v. Chater

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
NOV 10 1997
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
JOHNNIE RENEE MCDANIEL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
No. 97-5042
KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner, (D.C. No. 95-CV-1096-W)
Social Security Administration, * (N.D. Okla.)
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT **
Before KELLY, McKAY, and BRISCOE, 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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c), Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of
Social Security, is substituted for Shirley S. Chater as the defendant in this action.
**
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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 Johnnie Renee McDaniel appeals the denial of her claims for
supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits. After her
application was denied administratively, an administrative law judge (ALJ), held
a hearing and denied benefits at step five of the five-step sequential evaluation
process, see Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750-52 (10th Cir. 1988)
(discussing five steps). The Appeals Council and the district court 1 declined to
reverse the ALJ’s decision. We affirm.
We review the Commissioner’s decision to determine whether the findings
of fact are supported by substantial evidence based on the entire record, and to
ascertain whether he applied the correct legal standards. See Castellano v.
Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 26 F.3d 1027, 1028 (10th Cir. 1994).
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 not reweigh the evidence or substitute our
judgment for that of the Commissioner. See Kelley v. Chater, 62 F.3d 335, 337
(10th Cir. 1995).
1
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c).
-2-
Claimant alleges disability due to mental problems, obesity, back pain, and
swelling in her legs and feet. The ALJ determined that she could not return to her
past work as a housekeeper, beauty operator, day care attendant, or food service
worker, but that she could perform a full range of sedentary work. He then
applied the “grids,” i.e., the medical-vocational guidelines, 20 C.F.R., Pt. 404,
Subpt. P, App. 2, to find claimant not disabled. On appeal, claimant asserts the
ALJ failed to evaluate properly her mental impairment and to consider the impact
of that impairment on her ability to work. She also claims the ALJ was required
to obtain the opinion of a vocational expert to evaluate the impact of claimant’s
mental impairment on the jobs available to her.
The record contains substantial evidence to support the conclusion that
claimant’s mental condition does not impair her ability to perform sedentary
work. The ALJ considered all of the evidence submitted, see R. vol. II at 17, and
he discussed the evidence he considered in completing the Psychiatric Review
form, as required by Cruse v. United States Department of Health & Human
Services, 49 F.3d 614, 617-18 (10th Cir. 1995). Moreover, because claimant’s
mental problems are treatable, they do not establish disability. See 20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1530, 416.930 (claimant must follow prescribed treatment if it can restore
ability to work); cf. Pacheco v. Sullivan, 931 F.2d 695, 697-98 (10th Cir. 1991)
-3-
(discussing standards for refusal to follow prescribed treatment, indicating that
benefits will cease if treatment can restore ability to work).
The ALJ properly relied on the grids and was not required to obtain the
opinion of a vocational expert because substantial evidence supports the
determination that claimant’s psychological impairments do not limit her ability
to perform sedentary work. See Eggleston v. Bowen, 851 F.2d 1244, 1247 (10th
Cir. 1988) (presence of nonexertional impairment does not preclude use of grids
if nonexertional impairment does not limit claimant’s ability to perform work); cf.
Castellano, 26 F.3d at 1030 (ALJ’s reliance on grids was not error because
claimant’s pain testimony was not fully credible). We also reject claimant’s
alternative argument that even if her mental condition improved following her
hospitalization in December 1993, her mental condition limited her ability to
work from January 1992 to January 1994. Accordingly, we conclude that the
Commissioner’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record
and was based on correct legal standards.
The judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-4-