Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-96-06024/USCOURTS-ca10-96-06024-0/pdf.json

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

---

PUBLISH . FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

Vn•ted States Court or Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

ALJEWELL LAMBERT, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

SHIRLEY S. CRATER, Commissioner 

of Social Security,* 

Defendant-Appellee. 

SEP 1 9 1996 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

No. 96-6024 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

(D.C. No. CIV-94-807-L) 

Submitted on the briefs: 

Paul F. McTighe, Jr., and Gayle L. Troutman, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for PlaintiffAppellant. 

Stephen C. Lewis, United States Attorney, Joseph B. Liken, Acting Chief 

Counsel, Region IV, and Chris Carillo, Lead Attorney, Region VI, Office of the 

General Counsel, Social Security Administration, Dallas, Texas, for DefendantAppellee. 

Effective March 31, 1995, the functions of the Secretary of Health and 

Human Services in social security cases were transferred to the Commissioner of 

Social Security. P.L. No. 103-296. In the text we continue to refer to the 

Secretary because she was the appropriate party at the time of the underlying 

decision. 

Appellate Case: 96-6024 Document: 01019279762 Date Filed: 09/19/1996 Page: 1 
Before BRORBY, BARRETT, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

EBEL, Circuit Judge. 

Claimant Aljewell Lambert appeals from an order of the district court 

affirming the final decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

denying her application for social security disability benefits. 1 Claimant contends 

she became disabled prior to expiration of her insured status on September 30, 

1984, due to phlebitis, obesity and venous insufficiency. In a decision that now 

stands as the final decision of the Secretary, the administrative law judge (ALJ) 

denied benefits at step five of the five-part sequential process for determining 

disability. See Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750-52 (lOth Cir. 1988). We 

have jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the 

Secretary's decision to determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence 

and whether the correct legal standards were applied. Washington v. Shalala, 37 

F.3d 1437, 1439 (lOth Cir. 1994). 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously to grant the parties' request for a decision on the briefs without oral 

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is 

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 96-6024 Document: 01019279762 Date Filed: 09/19/1996 Page: 2 
The ALJ determined that at the time claimant's insured status expired, she 

had the capacity to perform sedentary work, but could not perform her past work, 

which was performed at a level beyond sedentary. Finding that she was a younger 

individual, that she had limited education, and that the transferability of skills 

was immaterial, the ALJ relied on the grids, the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, 

20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2, Rule 201.19, in concluding claimant was not 

disabled. 

On appeal, claimant contends that because she was in the "borderline 

category" between "younger individual" and "closely approaching advanced age," 

the ALJ erred by mechanically relying on the grids' age classification rather than 

considering whether her ability to adapt to new work situations was less than the 

level established under the grids for persons her age. At the time her insured 

status expired, claimant was 49 years, 5 months old. "Closely approaching 

advanced age" begins at age 50. 

The regulations provide that the Secretary will not apply the age categories 

mechanically in a "borderline situation." 20 C.F .R. § 404.1563(a). The Secretary 

considers a borderline situation to exist "when there would be a shift in results 

caused by the passage of a few days or months." Social Security Ruling 82-46c, 

1982 WL 31427, at *6 (quotation omitted); see also Andrade v. Secretary of 

Health & Human Servs., 985 F.2d 1045, 1051 (lOth Cir. 1993)(Social Security 

Rulings entitled to deference). When her insured status expired, claimant was 

-3-

Appellate Case: 96-6024 Document: 01019279762 Date Filed: 09/19/1996 Page: 3 
• 

seven months short of the next category. We conclude that she did not fall within 

a borderline situation preventing application of the grids. See Russell v. Bowen, 

856 F .2d 81, 84 (9th Cir. 1988)(holding that claimant seven months younger than 

next age category did not fall into borderline situation). 

Claimant also urges us to apply the Eleventh Circuit rule prohibiting strict 

reliance on the grids' age factor when the claimant proffers substantial credible 

evidence that '"the claimant's ability to adapt to a new work environment is less 

than the level established under the grids for persons his age."' Patterson v. 

Bowen, 799 F .2d 1455, 1458 (11th Cir. 1986)(quoting Reeves v. Heckler, 734 

F.2d 519, 526 (11th Cir. 1984)). Though we have serious doubts about the 

correctness of that rule, even if we were to apply it in this case, it would not avail 

claimant. She contends that her ability to perform no more than sedentary work 

and her limited education demonstrate her limited ability to adapt. Patterson held 

that these factors do not relate to a claimant's ability to adapt. ld. at 1459. She 

also contends her medical problems l.imit her ability to adapt because they would 

require her to elevate her legs and to miss work occasionally. She did not present 

this argument to the district court, and we will not consider it on appeal. See 

Crow v. Shalala, 40 F .3d 323, 324 (1Oth Cir. 1994 ). 

AFFIRMED. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 96-6024 Document: 01019279762 Date Filed: 09/19/1996 Page: 4