Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02121/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02121-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

JOSEPHS. GRUDZINA, 

Plaintiff- Appellant, 

Fl LED 

Unired Stares Court of Appeals 

TFnth Cir(ui:: 

FEB 2 8 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk · 

v . 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 89-2121 

LOUIS W. SULLIVAN, M.D., 

Secretary of Health and 

Human Services, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

(D . New Mexico) 

(D . C. No . CV 86-1267 JB) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

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. Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellant appeals from a ruling by the United States District 

Court for the District of New Mexico affirming the decision of the 

Secretary of Health and Human Services that appellant's disability 

ceased in October, 1980, and that he was no longer entitled to 

disability insurance benefits after December, 1980. We have 

* 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. 

Appellate Case: 89-2121 Document: 01019964577 Date Filed: 02/28/1990 Page: 1 
reviewed the record and conclude that the Secretary's final 

decision is supported by substantial evidence. See Bernal v. 

Bowen, 851 F.2d 297, 299 (10th Cir. 1988). Appellant's proven 

ability to earn income over those amounts specified by the 

Secretary's regulations demonstrates that he has the ability to 

engage in substantial gainful activity. See Hedge v. Richardson, 

458 F . 2d 1065, 1067 (10th Cir. 1972). 

The issue of whether appellant is entitled to benefits after 

October, 1980 (the date the Secretary determined that appellant's 

disability ceased), has not been properly presented to, nor 

decided by, the Appeals Council, and therefore is not appropriate 

for consideration upon appeal to this court. Mathews v. Eldridge, 

424 U. S. 319, 328-31 (1976). 

Accordingly, the order of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-2121 Document: 01019964577 Date Filed: 02/28/1990 Page: 2