Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-07087/USCOURTS-ca10-92-07087-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS "F~ l L ..... riJl~ 

United~<"t-rcuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Tentb 

1 

FEBO 5 1993 

JESSIE L. ALEXANDER, ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

LOUIS W. SULLIVAN, M.D., 

Defendant-Appellee. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 92-7087 

(D.C. No. CV-91-209-S) 

( E. D. Okla. ) 

Before TACHA and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges, and BROWN,** Senior 

District Judge.*** 

**Honorable Wesley E. Brown, Senior District Judge, United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

Plaintiff-appellant Jessie L. Alexander appeals from a 

district court order affirming the Secretary's denial of 

disability insurance benefits. Because we find the Secretary's 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

*** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App . P . 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 92-7087 Document: 010110166222 Date Filed: 02/05/1993 Page: 1 
decision to be supported by substantial evidence, and because the 

questions presented to the vocational expert were proper, we 

affirm. 

Alexander, a fifty-four year old woman, complains that she is 

disabled because of a heart condition and a prior back injury. 

She first filed applicati ons for disability insurance benefits and 

supplemental security income benefits on July 11, 1988 . After an 

initial hearing and two supplemental hearings, an administrative 

law judge (ALJ) denied Alexander's applications, finding that she 

had the residual functional capacity to perform the full range of 

sedentary work. The Appeals Council denied Alexander's request 

for review. 

Alexander sought judicial review in the district court for 

the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The district court affirmed the 

Secretary's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the 

conclusion that claimant was not disabled. On appeal, Alexander 

argues that the decision is not supported by the evidence and that 

the questions asked of the vocational expert were improper. 

Our review of the record is limited to determining whether it 

contains substantial evidence to support the Secretary's decision. 

Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750 (10th Cir. 1988). 

"Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable 

mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Hargis v. 

Sullivan, 945 F.2d 1482, 1486 (10th Cir. 1991) . In applying the 

standard, we may not reweigh 

judgment for that of the agency. 

the evidence 

Id. 

2 

or substitute our 

Appellate Case: 92-7087 Document: 010110166222 Date Filed: 02/05/1993 Page: 2 
Here, the ALJ's determination that Alexander is not disabled 

is well supported by the evidence . Her medical records 

demonstrate a complete medical recovery from a myocardial 

infarction and coronary angioplasty. Alexander's results on her 

Thallium stress test were "entirely normal," II R. 390, and her 

electrocardiogram was normal. Although Alexander has complained 

of chest pains intermittently since her heart attack, both her 

cardiologist and her treating physician have suggested that her 

chest pain is not cardiac in origin. II R. 373, 377. 

The record also contains little, if any, objective medical 

evidence to support Alexander's claim of disabling back pain. 

Diagnosed with a lumbar strain in 1978, she continued to perform 

"light work" through 1986. When she was examined in March 1987, 

the consulting physician found no lumbar spine abnormality, no 

neurological deficit, and no restrictions as to her function or 

activity. II R. 214-15. Lumbar spine x-rays taken in September 

1987 show no abnormalities other than a developmental 

lumbarization. II R. 240. In January 1989, Alexander' s treating 

physician, Dr. Fava, found no muscle weakness, atrophy, spasm, or 

deformity in the lumbar region, finding only mild tenderness . II 

R. 376. 

Dr. Fava opined that Alexander was not at all impaired in 

sitting, handling objects, hearing, speaking, or traveling. He 

found her to be minimally impaired in standing and moving about, 

and "moderately impaired" in lifting and carrying objects over 

five pounds in weight. II R. 376. Alexander argues that this 

opinion precludes the ALJ's finding that she is capable of 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-7087 Document: 010110166222 Date Filed: 02/05/1993 Page: 3 
perfonning the full range of sedentary work. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 404.1567(a) defines "sedentary work" as follows: 

Sedentary work involves lifting no more than 10 pounds 

at a time and occasionally lifting or carrying articles 

like docket files, ledgers, and small tools. Although a 

sedentary job is defined as one which involves sitting, 

a certain amount of walking and standing is often 

necessary in carrying out job duties. 

Dr. Fava's opinion, however, is perfectly consistent with the 

exertional requirements of the sedentary work classification. He 

did not state that Alexander is "totally" impaired or "extremely" 

impaired from lifting and carrying objects over five pounds in 

weight, but simply that she was "moderately" restricted from doing 

so. As the testimony of the vocational expert made clear, 

sedentary work "involves little or no lifting." II R. 78 . In 

fact, the vocational expert was directly asked whether, if the ALJ 

found that Alexander was moderately impaired in lifting and 

carrying over five pounds, she would still be qualified for the 

jobs identified. The vocational expert reiterated that because 

such jobs involved little or no lifting, she would be capable of 

perfonning them. II R. 80-81. 

Alexander also argues that she cannot perfonn sedentary work 

because one hand is paralyzed and the other has no grip strength, 

and because her legs go numb after sitting for thirty minutes. 

The ALJ found that Alexander's claims of hand paralysis and leg 

numbness were incredible. These credibility detenninations are 

entitled to great deference. Williams, 844 F. 2d at 755. 

Alexander's treating physician noted that she was capable of gross 

and fine manipulation without difficulty and that her grip 

strength was normal. II R. 376 . He found no muscle weakness or 

4 

Appellate Case: 92-7087 Document: 010110166222 Date Filed: 02/05/1993 Page: 4 
sensory loss and concluded that Alexander was not impaired in 

sitting. Id. We see no reason to disturb the ALJ's credibility 

assessment. 

Alexander argues that the decision is not supported by 

substantial evidence because the ALJ's hypothetical questions to 

the vocational expert did not include a complete description of 

her impairments. '" [T)estimony elicited by hypothetical questions 

that do not relate with precision all of a claimant's impairments 

cannot constitute substantial evidence to support the Secretary's 

decision.'" Hargis, 945 F.2d at 1492 (quoting Ekeland v. Bowen, 

899 F.2d 719, 724 (8th Cir. 1990)). In forming a hypothetical, 

however, the ALJ need only relate impairments if the record 

contains substantial evidence to support their inclusion. Ehrhart 

v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 969 F.2d 534, 540 (7th Cir. 

1992); see also Talley v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d 585, 588 (10th Cir. 

1990). Here, the ALJ rejected Alexander's claims of hand 

paralysis, lack of grip strength, leg numbness, and disabling back 

pain. The ALJ's credibility determinations were well supported. 

Therefore, it was proper to limit the hypothetical questions to a 

listing of those impairments which the ALJ found supported in the 

record. Id. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

5 

Appellate Case: 92-7087 Document: 010110166222 Date Filed: 02/05/1993 Page: 5 
Appellate Case: 92-7087 Document: 010110166222 Date Filed: 02/05/1993 Page: 6