Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02751/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02751-0/pdf.json

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

---

· IL 0 

United Statts Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circui: 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

JAN 3 0 1990 

AOBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

LAWRENCE E. ADAMS, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

LOUIS W. SULLIVAN, M.D., Secretary) 

of Health and Human Services, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 88-2751 

(D.C. No. 87-1204-K) 

(D. Kansas) 

Before LOGAN, MCWILLIAMS, 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. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Lawrence A. Adams appeals the district court's affirmance of 

the Secretary of Health and Human Services' decision denying his 

application for social security disability benefits. 

* 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: 88-2751 Document: 01019961716 Date Filed: 01/30/1990 Page: 1 
• ' 

Adams challenges the district court's refusal to review the 

agency's denial of disability benefits under his original 

application. In Adams' original filing for disability benefits, 

he alleged onset of disability as December 4, 1980. After various 

administrative proceedings, the administrative law judge (ALJ) 

denied relief by an order issued June 22, 1984. Adams did not 

appeal. He then filed a new application on March 7, 1985, again 

alleging a December 1980 onset of disability. Adams asserts that 

in the process of handling this second claim the agency reopened 

and reviewed his earlier application, and hence that decision 

ought to be reviewable in the appeal before us. 

Although the initial denials of Adams' application did not 

rely on the rejection of his previous application, the ALJ found 

that there was no reason or basis for reopening the earlier 

application and considered the evidence of Adams' condition before 

June 22, 1984, only ''as it pertains to the claimant's current 

applications." I R. 14. Because Adams did not appeal the 

Secretary's determination on his first application that he was not 

disabled at any time prior to June 22, 1984, we can review this 

determination only if the agency reopened the prior application. 

See Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 107-09 (1977); Taylor ex 

rel. Peck v. Heckler, 738 F.2d 1112, 1114-15 (10th Cir. 1984). 

The ALJ explicitly refused to reopen the prior application, and 

the ALJ's decision was the final decision of the Secretary. 

Therefore, even if the initial denials of Adams' second 

application were based on a review of the period covered by the 

prior application, the Secretary's final decision not to reopen 

-2-

Appellate Case: 88-2751 Document: 01019961716 Date Filed: 01/30/1990 Page: 2 
the prior application leaves us with no jurisdiction to review 

that denial. See White v. Schweiker, 725 F.2d 91, 93-94 (10th 

Cir. 1984). And the ALJ's consideration of evidence of Adams' 

condition before June 22, 1984, did not de facto reopen the prior 

application, since the ALJ explicitly considered that evidence 

only so far as it might be relevant to Adams' claim of disability 

after June 22, 1984. Accord Rohrich v. Bowen, 796 F.2d 1030, 1031 

(8th Cir. 1986). 

We have carefully reviewed the voluminous briefs and 

significant record, and we cannot add significantly to the 

analysis of the medical evidence by the ALJ and the district 

court. We have considered Adams' legal arguments that the ALJ and 

the district court improperly applied the grids and did not 

sufficiently consider the credibility of Adams' complaints of pain 

or the effect of the combination of Adams' impairments, and that 

the district court erroneously considered theories not presented 

to the ALJ concerning the remediable nature of Adams' obesity and 

smoking, which contributed to his pulmonary problems. We find no 

legal error, and even without considering the post hoc 

rationalizations advanced by the district court, there is 

substantial evidence to support the ALJ's determination. 

AFFIRMED. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 88-2751 Document: 01019961716 Date Filed: 01/30/1990 Page: 3