Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06264/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06264-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF 

FILED 

. d States Court ~f Appeals 

APPEALs.Jmte Tenth Circutt 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT APR l O 1991 

&.OBERT L. HOECKER 

JESSEL. Clerk 

v. 

LOUIS W. 

Health & 

RILES, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

) 

) 

SULLIVAN, M.D., Secretary of ) 

Human Services, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 90-6264 

(D.C. No. CIV 88-95-H) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, 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 

Claimant appeals the magistrate's order of June 14, 1990, 

affirming the Secretary's denial of claimant's application for 

disability insurance benefits. Claimant applied for disability 

benefits on December 31, 1985, alleging he had been disabled due 

* 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: 90-6264 Document: 010110031897 Date Filed: 04/10/1991 Page: 1 
to problems with his back and right leg since October 31, 1984. 

Although claimant did not assert it as a basis for disability in 

his application for benefits, the record showed that claimant also 

had been blind in his right eye since 1974 as the result of a 

gunshot wound. 

Claimant's attempt to secure disability benefits from the 

Secretary followed a long and winding road that ended with the 

Appeals Council's decision on February 26, 1990, denying him 

benefits. The Appeals Council adopted the findings and 

conclusions of the administrative law judge's (ALJ) recommended 

decision of August 14, 1989, including his findings that claimant 

is unable to perform his past relevant work, but retains the 

residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work so long as 

it does not require bilateral vision, and his conclusion that 

claimant is not disabled, based on his residual functional 

capacity, age, education, and work 

review in the district court of 

experience. Claimant sought 

the Secretary's denial of 

benefits. With the parties' consent, the district court referred 

the action to a magistrate for disposition. The magistrate 

affirmed the denial of benefits in a lengthy memorandum opinion, 

and this appeal followed. 

Claimant raises the following issues on appeal: (1) whether 

the Secretary gave proper weight to the treating physician's 

reports; (2) whether the medical adviser overstepped the bounds of 

appropriate testimony; (3) whether the Secretary evaluated 

claimant's subjective allegations of pain properly; (4) whether 

the Secretary overlooked claimant's nonexertional impairments, 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-6264 Document: 010110031897 Date Filed: 04/10/1991 Page: 2 
-· 

specifically, his pain, use of a cane, and loss of eyesight, and 

improperly applied the grids in deciding whether claimant was 

capable of substantial gainful employment; and (5) whether 

substantial evidence supports the Secretary's decision that 

claimant is capable of substantial gainful employment. 

We must uphold the Secretary's decision if it is supported by 

substantial evidence and if the correct legal standards were 

applied. Frey v. Bowen, 816 F.2d 508, 512 (10th Cir. 1987). In 

reviewing claimant's arguments, we are mindful that the only 

decisions before us for review are those of the ALJ on 

August 14, 1989, and the Appeals Council on February 26, 1990, 

which comprise the Secretary's final decision on claimant's 

application. The propriety of any earlier administrative decision 

is not before us. 

Based upon our thorough review of the record, see Broadbent 

v. Harris, 698 F.2d 407, 414 (10th Cir. 1983), the parties' briefs 

on appeal, and the pertinent law, we conclude the district court 

properly affirmed the decision of the Secretary denying claimant's 

application for disability insurance benefits. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-6264 Document: 010110031897 Date Filed: 04/10/1991 Page: 3