Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-07020/USCOURTS-ca10-89-07020-0/pdf.json

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

---

FILED 

Uaired Scatet Court of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT JUL i 2 1990 

JAMES E. BROWN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

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

Health and Human Services, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

!\OBERT L. HOECKER 

> Clerk 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 89-7020 

) (D.C. No. 86-119-C) 

) ( E. D. Ok la. ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, BARRETT, 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-appellant James E. Brown appeals from the district 

court' s order affirming the decision of the appellee Secretary of 

Health and Human Services to deny claimant's applications for 

* 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: 89-7020 Document: 010110038319 Date Filed: 07/12/1990 Page: 1 
social security disability benefits, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-33, and 

supplemental security income (SSI) benefits, 42 u.s.c. 

§§ 1381-BJc. We affirm. 

The Secretary initially found claimant disabled and awarded 

him disability benefits on August 11, 1972, due to recurrent 

squamous cell carcinoma. 

benefits in August, 1982. 

The Secretary later terminated those 

Claimant filed applications for 

disability and SSI benefits in January, 1984. Although benefits 

were denied, claimant did not appeal. 

Claimant filed his current requests for disability and SSI 

benefits ln November, 1984, alleging problems with his legs, feet, 

knees , heart, high blood pressure, and high blood count. Benefits 

were denied initially and on reconsideration. After holding an 

evidentiary hearing, the administrative law judge (A.L.J.) 

concluded claimant was not disabled. When the appeals council 

declined further review, claimant appealed. On the Secretary's 

motion , the case was remanded to the Secretary for a new hearing, 

because an inaudible hearing tape precluded preparation of the 

administrative record. 

The A.L.J. held a second hearing at which claimant and his 

attorney appeared. The A.L.J. determined that claimant suffered 

from the severe impairments of: 

a history of carcinoma of the right parotid gland, 

status post-op without recurrance [sic]; status post 

myocardial infarction; hypertension with no evidence end 

organ damage; possible torn meniscus of the left knee 

and possible osteoarthritis of both knees; recurrent 

skin cancer, controlled; residuals of a gunshot wound to 

the left leg; and low back pain[.] 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-7020 Document: 010110038319 Date Filed: 07/12/1990 Page: 2 
.. The A.L.J. rejected claimant's complaints of pain as grossly 

exaggerated, not credible, and unworthy of belief and determined 

claimant had the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary 

work. Based on claimant's age of forty-eight years, eighth grade 

education, prior heavy, unskilled work as a truck driver, 

instr ument fitter and oil field laborer, and residual functional 

capacity, the A.L.J. applied the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, 

20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 2 and § 416.969 (1989), and 

determined claimant was not disabled. 

On review, the appeals council adopted the A.L.J. 's findings 

and conclusions with supplementation of new medical evidence and 

further discussion of the evidence. Additionally, the appeals 

council applied res judicata to the period of disability ending 

October , 1982. The district court affirmed. 

On appeal, a reviewing court considers only whether the 

Secretary's decision is supported by substantial evidence. Bernal 

v . Bowen, 851 F.2d 297, 299 (10th Cir. 1988). Substantial 

evidence is evidence a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to 

support a conclusion. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 

(1971). Although a reviewing court will meticulously examine the 

record , it will not weigh the evidence or substitute its 

discreti on for that of the Secretary. 

F.2d 407, 414 (10th Cir. 1983). 

Broadbent 

Also, the 

considers whether the Secretary applied the 

standards. Bernal, 851 F.2d at 299. 

v . Har r is , 6 9 8 

reviewing court 

correct legal 

On appeal, claimant first argues that his recent applications 

for benefits should have been treated as a reopening of his 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-7020 Document: 010110038319 Date Filed: 07/12/1990 Page: 3 
.. termination of benefits. Although he did not appeal the 

termination of benefits, claimant believes his recent applications 

should have been evaluated under the medical improvement standard 

rather than the standard for new disability claims. Additionally, 

claimant contends the A.L.J. "non-explicitly reopened the case." 

The appeals council, in its opinion, stated that any issues 

pertaining to disability prior to October, 1982, were res 

judicata. Neither the district court nor this court has 

jurisdiction to review the Secretary's refusal to reopen a claim 

tor disability benefits or determination such claim is res 

judica ta .. Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 107-09 (1977); 

Krumpelman v. Heckler, 767 F.2d 586, 588 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. 

denied, 475 U.S. 1025 (1986). The Secretary's decision not to 

reopen a previously adjudicated claim for benefits is 

discretionary and, therefore, is not a final decision reviewable 

under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Krumpelman, 767 F.2d at 588. 

Claimant may not use these later applications for benefits as 

an attempt to circumvent the appeal requirements for a termination 

of benefits. The medical improvement standard applies only in 

termination cases, not in later applications for benefits. 

Richardson v. Bowen, 807 F.2d 444, 445-46 (5th Cir. 1987). 

Contrary to claimant's argument, nothing in the record 

indicates the Secretary actually reopened claimant's case. Cf. 

Taylor ex rel. Peck v. Heckler, 738 F.2d 1112 (10th Cir. 

1984)(A.L.J. de facto reopened prior proceedings by reviewing case 

on merits and considering additional evidence). Because the 

Secretary expressly refused to reopen by invoking the doctrine of 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-7020 Document: 010110038319 Date Filed: 07/12/1990 Page: 4 
• 

res judicata, there was no reopening in fact. See id. at 1115 

n.6. 

Accordingly, we conclude the A.L.J. did not reopen claimant's 

case. We, therefore, do not have jurisdiction to review the 

Secretary's refusal to reopen and application of res judicata 

principles. 

Claimant's second and third arguments on appeal are that the 

A.L.J. erred in failing to call a vocational expert to evaluate 

claimant's complaints of pain and skin cancer condition and the 

A.L.J. erred in ruling that claimant's complaints of pain were not 

credib le. We conclude the arguments are without merii. The 

A:L.J. and appeals council thoroughly considered both the medical 

and subjective evidence. Therefore, we affirm the denial of 

benefits for substantially the reasons stated in their opinions. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

5 

Appellate Case: 89-7020 Document: 010110038319 Date Filed: 07/12/1990 Page: 5