Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02072/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02072-0/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 

JESSE G. AGUILAR, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

FI LED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

SEP 1 3 1990 

R.OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-2072 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH & HUMAN 

SERVICES, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

(D.C. No. CV 89-434 JP) 

(D. N.M.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and TACHA, 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. 

This appeal is from an order of the district court affirming 

the denial by the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

(Secretary) of plaintiff's applications for disability insurance 

and supplemental security income (SSI) benefits. Plaintiff 

appeals on the grounds that the district court erred in finding 

* 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 ot ·the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-2072 Document: 010110042160 Date Filed: 09/13/1990 Page: 1 
that the Secretary's decision was supported by substantial 

evidence and by applying incorrect legal standards. We affirm. 

Plaintiff's application for disability benefits was denied 

initially by an administrative law judge. After a remand by the 

appeals council, the administrative law judge considered testimony 

by a vocational expert. The claim for disability benefits was 

again denied. The appeals council refused to review the 

determination. The district court affirmed the denial of 

benefits. Plaintiff suffers from back problems and depression. 

The testimony of a number of doctors was taken in the 

administrative hearings. The district court gave proper 

consideration to the testimony of the treating physicians. The 

district court also applied correctly the vocational guidelines in 

affirming the determination of the ALJ that plaintiff retained the 

residual functional capacity for light work and that appellant was 

not disabled at the 5th step of the application of the vocational 

guidelines (grids). In our view, the district court applied the 

correct legal standards. We find substantial evidence to support 

the Secretary's determination to deny benefits. The order of the 

district court is AFFIRMED for substantially the reasons given by 

the district court. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-2-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-2072 Document: 010110042160 Date Filed: 09/13/1990 Page: 2