Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-02290/USCOURTS-ca10-91-02290-0/pdf.json

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

---

FIL E D 

Uflited States 0:,urt of Appeals 

Tenth Ci~cuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT JUL 2 9 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

ROBERT J. ROYBAL, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 91-2290 

) (D.C. No. CIV-89-809-JB) 

) (D. N.M.) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, BARRETT, and BRORBY, 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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Plaintiff Robert J. Roybal appeals fr9m an order of the 

district court denying his Motion to Remand for a Rehearing and 

the Taking of Additional Evidence, and affirming the final 

decision of the Secretary denying his claim for disability 

insurance benefits. Finding no error, we affirm. 

* 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: 91-2290 Document: 010110275154 Date Filed: 07/29/1992 Page: 1
On August 25 and 26, 1987, Roybal applied for supplemental 

security income benefits under§ 1602 of Title XVI of the Social 

Security Act, 42 u.s.c. § 1381a, and disability insurance benefits 

under §§ 216(a) and 223 of Title II of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 416(i) and 423, asserting that he was rendered disabled on 

May 6, 1986, by various physical and mental impairments. After a 

hearing, the administrative law judge issued a decision dated 

January 23, 1989, that Roybal was not disabled within the meaning 

of the Act and therefore was not entitled to benefits. The 

Appeals Council denied Roybal's request for review. As a result, 

the decision of the ALJ became the final decision of the 

Secretary. 

Roybal then sought review in the district court pursuant to 

§ 205(g) of the Act, 42 u.s.c. § 405(g). Roybal contended that 

the ALJ failed to adequately complete the record before making his 

determination by accepting an incomplete psychiatric exam and not 

ordering additional psychological testing, and that additional 

evidence offered by Roybal to the district court provided a basis 

for remand in any event. 

The district court carefully reviewed the record and Roybal's 

additional evidence in light of Roybal's contentions and the 

applicable law. In its Memorandum Opinion and Order entered 

October 31, 1991, the district court found, as had the ALJ, that 

the consultative psychiatric exam ordered by the ALJ was adequate, 

and that further psychological testing would not be helpful in 

determining whether Roybal was disabled because the consulting 

psychiatrist stated in his report that Roybal's "main problems 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-2290 Document: 010110275154 Date Filed: 07/29/1992 Page: 2
[were] of a physical nature." Appellant's App. at 8, 10, 81. The 

court also found that the additional evidence offered by Roybal 

was not "new" or "material," as required by 42 u.s.c. § 405(g) to 

support remand, because the diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress 

~ Disorder it included had also been included in the consultative 

psychiatric report presented to the ALJ. Appellant's App. at 

10-11, 81. The court therefore affirmed the final decision of the 

Secretary and denied Roybal's Motion to Remand. The court's 

discussion of both issues was thorough and well-reasoned. 

Roybal makes the same arguments on appeal as in the district 

court. We have examined the record and Roybal's additional 

evidence and affirm the order of the district court denying 

Roybal's Motion to Remand ·for a Rehearing and the Taking of 

Additional Evidence and affirming the final decision of the 

Secretary, for substantially the same reasons set forth in the 

court's Memorandum Opinion and Order, entered October 31, 1991, a 

copy of which is attached. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of New Mexico is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

James E. Barrett 

Senior Circuit Judge 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-2290 Document: 010110275154 Date Filed: 07/29/1992 Page: 3