Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03331/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03331-0/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 

THELMA V. VEESART, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

FI LED 

United States C.ourt of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

JUN 2 0 1990 

.&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. No. 89-3331 

LOUIS W. SULLIVAN, M.D., 

Secretary of Health and Human 

Services, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

(D. Kan. No. 88-2612-0) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK, 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. 

Plaintiff appeals from the district court's October 16, 1989 

order which affirmed the Secretary of Health and Service's 

decision to deny plaintiff disability benefits which became final 

October 28, 1988. In her application for benefits plaintiff 

asserts that she has been unable to work since 1981 because 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 estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-3331 Document: 010110036843 Date Filed: 06/20/1990 Page: 1 
chronic bladder and bowel problems and because of daily back pain 

due to arthritis. 

The Secretary's decision of nondisability is reviewed to see 

whether the action is supported by substantial evidence. See 

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

reviewing the briefs and the appellate record, we are convinced 

that the Secretary's decision is adequately supported in the 

record by substantial evidence. Therefore, to the extent that it 

concerns the Secretary's October 28, 1988 decision, we AFFIRM the 

district court's October 16, 1989 order, for the reasons stated 

therein. 1 The mandate shall issue _· forthwith . 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

1 In her brief, plaintiff also argues that the reopening of her 

June 27, 1986, application was in error. However, her complaint 

below does not raise that issue. To the contrary, she 

affirmatively states in her complaint that she took no appeal from 

the denial of benefits requested in that application. 

Accordingly, we decline to consider that issue for the first time 

on appeal. See Tenth Circuit Rule 28.2(d). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-3331 Document: 010110036843 Date Filed: 06/20/1990 Page: 2