Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06186/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06186-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 

---

FI LED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

United Scates Court of Appeals 

Tenth Ci"."·7)'t 

JAN 31 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

MARY MARIE WILLIAMS, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

LOUIS SULLIVAN, M.D., Secretary of the ) 

Department of Health and Human Services,) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Clerk . 

No. 89-6186 

(D.C. No. 88-1519-W) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

Before MOORE, BARRETT, Circuit Judges, and SPARR,** District 

Judge. 

**Honorable Daniel 

District Court for 

designation. 

B. Sparr, District Judge, 

the District of Colorado, 

United States 

sitting by 

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 

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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-6186 Document: 010110083659 Date Filed: 01/31/1991 Page: 1 
Claimant Mary Marie Williams appeals from an order of the 

United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma 

affirming the Secretary's decision to deny claimant's application 

for social security disability benefits pursuant to the Social 

Security Act, 42 u.s.c. §§ 416(i) and 423(a). 

Our review of the Secretary's decision is limited to 

determining whether that decision is supported by substantial 

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

Substantial evidence is "'such relevant evidence as a reasonable 

mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'" 

Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (quoting 

Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). In 

order to determine whether the Secretary's decision is supported 

by substantial evidence, we must meticulously examine the record. 

Broadbent v. Harris, 698 F.2d 407, 414 (10th Cir. 1983). However, 

we may not reweigh the evidence nor substitute our discretion for 

that of the Secretary. Id. (quoting Cagle v. Califano, 638 F.2d 

219, 220 (10th Cir. 1981)). 

We have thoroughly examined the record and hold that the 

Secretary's decision is amply supported by the evidence. 

Therefore, for substantially the same reasons contained in the 

district court's memorandum opinion dated March 27, 1989, and on 

the basis of the authorities therein, the judgment of the United 

States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma is 

AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-6186 Document: 010110083659 Date Filed: 01/31/1991 Page: 2