Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06128/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06128-0/pdf.json

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

---

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

f40V 15 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

MARYL. 

v. 

LOUIS W. 

Health & 

WHITE, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

) 

) 

SULLIVAN, Secretary of ) 

Human Services, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Clerk . 

No. 91-6128 

(D.C. No. 90-701-AR) 

( W. D. Okla. ) 

Before ANDERSON, 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. 1 

The case is therefore ordered 

Claimant Mary White appeals from the district court's 

judgment affirming the Secretary of Health and Human Services' 

denial of her application for benefits under Titles II and XVI of 

* 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

1 Appellant's request for oral argument is denied. 

Appellate Case: 91-6128 Document: 010110097367 Date Filed: 11/15/1991 Page: 1 
the Social Security Act. Claimant's application for benefits was 

denied initially and upon reconsideration. A hearing before an 

administrative law judge (ALJ) was held on September 16, 1986, 

resulting in a decision of no disability. The Appeals Council 

vacated this decision and remanded for a consultative psychiatric 

examination. A second hearing, held August 13, 1987, also 

resulted in a decision of no disability. The Appeals Council 

again vacated the ALJ's decision, concluding the evidence was 

contradictory, and remanded for another consultative psychiatric 

examination. Claimant's third hearing was held on December 15, 

1988. By decision dated May 9, 1989, the ALJ concluded that 

Claimant was not disabled within the meaning of the Social 

Security Act. The Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ's 

decision the final decision of the Secretary for purposes of 

review. Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 749 (10th Cir. 1988). 

Claimant appealed to the district court. The magistrate judge, in 

a Memorandum Opinion dated February 4, 1991, affirmed the 

Secretary's decision. 2 

The Secretary has established a five-step evaluation process 

pursuant to the Social Security Act for determining whether a 

claimant is disabled within the meaning of the Act. See id. at 

750-52 (describing five steps in detail). Reaching the fourth 

step of this analysis, the ALJ in this case determined that 

Claimant retained the residual functional capacity to perform her 

past relevant work and, therefore, was not disabled under the Act. 

2 The parties consented to magistrate jurisdiction under 28 

I U.S.C. S 636(c). 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-6128 Document: 010110097367 Date Filed: 11/15/1991 Page: 2 
On appeal to this court, Claimant argues, essentially, that the 

evidence in the record supports Claimant's allegations of 

disability and that the ALJ minimized the adverse effects of 

Claimant's physical and mental impairments in reaching his 

conclusion. 

Judicial review of the Secretary's determination that 

Claimant is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security 

Act is limited; the court's only function is to determine whether 

the record as a whole contains substantial evidence to support the 

Secretary's decision and whether the Secretary applied the correct 

legal standards. See Bernal v. Bowen, 851 F.2d 297, 299 (10th 

Cir. 1988). The Secretary's findings stand if they are supported 

by "'such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as 

adequate to support a conclusion.'" Broadbent v. Harris, 698 F.2d 

407, 414 (10th Cir. 1983)(quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 

389, 401 (1971)). 

Based on our careful review of the entire appellate record 

and the parties' briefs, we agree with the magistrate judge that 

substantial evidence supports the Secretary's decision that 

Claimant was not disabled within the meaning of the Social 

Security Act. Therefore, for substantially the same reasons 

contained in the Memorandum Opinion of the United States 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-6128 Document: 010110097367 Date Filed: 11/15/1991 Page: 3 
magistrate judge, dated February 4, 1991, the judgment of the 

United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma 

is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

James E. Barrett 

Senior Circuit Judge 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-6128 Document: 010110097367 Date Filed: 11/15/1991 Page: 4