Reynolds v. Apfel

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
SEP 15 1998
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
SARAH REYNOLDS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 97-6398
(D.C. No. 96-CV-1680)
KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner, (W.D. Okla.)
Social Security Administration, *
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT **
Before BRORBY, McKAY, and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
*
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c), Kenneth S. Apfel is substituted for
John J. Callahan, former Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Plaintiff appeals the district court’s decision upholding the Commissioner’s
denial of her 1992 application for disability and supplemental security income
benefits. The Commissioner subsequently awarded plaintiff benefits as a result of
a 1994 application, finding her disabled because of depression. The
administrative law judge (ALJ) determined, however, that, during the time frame
relevant to the 1992 application, plaintiff remained capable of performing her past
relevant work. The Appeals Council declined to review this step-four
determination, making the ALJ’s decision the Commissioner’s final
determination.
This court reviews the Commissioner’s decision only to determine whether
he applied correct legal standards and whether substantial evidence supported the
decision. See Bean v. Chater , 77 F.3d 1210, 1213 (10th Cir. 1995). At step four,
plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that she can no longer perform any of
her past relevant work. See Thompson v. Sullivan , 987 F.2d 1482, 1487 (10th
Cir. 1993). On appeal, plaintiff argues that the record does not contain
substantial evidence to support the Commissioner’s decision, and the ALJ failed
to afford the appropriate weight to the treating physicians’ opinions and
overlooked an earlier, subsequently vacated administrative decision finding
-2-
plaintiff disabled. Upon consideration of the record and the parties’ appellate
arguments, we affirm.
The record contains a number of medical opinions, proffered by both
treating and consulting physicians and other treating sources. These opinions
offer a variety of different diagnoses of plaintiff’s mental problems and note
varying degrees of resulting impairment. It is the ALJ’s province, as fact finder,
to decide the appropriate weight to be given such contradictory medical evidence.
Cf. Kemp v. Bowen , 816 F.2d 1469, 1476 (10th Cir. 1987) (noting it is fact
finder’s responsibility to resolve genuine conflicts between opinion of treating
physician and other contrary evidence). In doing so here, the ALJ afforded the
proper deference to the opinions of plaintiff’s treating physicians. Although there
are contradictory medical reports, the record does contain substantial evidence
supporting the ALJ’s decision denying benefits. See Glenn v. Shalala , 21 F.3d
983, 987-88 (10th Cir. 1994) (despite existence of evidence contrary to ALJ’s
finding, appellate court must affirm if, “considering the record as a whole,
including whatever fairly detracts from the findings, there is sufficient evidence
which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion”
(citation, further quotation omitted)). Further, in light of the fact that the Appeals
Council vacated the earlier administrative decision finding plaintiff disabled
-3-
because that decision contained “no rationale or basis to support” its conclusion,
II R. at 352, that decision offers no support for plaintiff’s disability claim.
The judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma upholding the Commissioner’s denial of benefits is, therefore,
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Wade Brorby
Circuit Judge
-4-