Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-07-01121/USCOURTS-ca10-07-01121-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael J. Astrue
Appellee
Phillip A. Novak
Appellant

Document Text:

Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2), Michael J. Astrue is substituted for *

Jo Anne B. Barnhart as appellee in this action.

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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and

collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent

with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

November 6, 2007

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

PHILLIP A. NOVAK,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v. 

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,*

Commissioner of Social Security,

 Defendant-Appellee.

No. 07-1121

(D.C. No. 05-cv-2261-EWN)

(D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

**

Before HARTZ, Circuit Judge, BRORBY, Senior Circuit Judge and

TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judge.

Phillip Novak appeals from an order of the district court affirming the

Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security

Appellate Case: 07-1121 Document: 010164396 Date Filed: 11/06/2007 Page: 1 
-2-

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

and affirm the district court’s judgment.

I.

Mr. Novak claims disability as of November 30, 2001, from a shoulder

injury, lumbrosacrial spodylosis, spinal stenosis, and a possible SI (sacroiliac)

joint injury. After a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded at step

five of the five-step sequential evaluation process, see 20 C.F.R. 404.1520;

Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750-52 (10th Cir. 1988) (explaining the fivestep process), that Mr. Novak was not disabled because he retained the residual

functional capacity (RFC) to perform a significant range of work. The Appeals

Council denied review, and the district court affirmed the ALJ’s decision.

Because the Appeals Council denied review, the ALJ’s decision is the final

agency decision. Doyal v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 758, 759 (10th Cir. 2003). Our

review of the agency’s decision is limited to determining whether it is supported

by substantial evidence and whether the Commissioner applied the correct legal

standards. Madrid v. Barnhart, 447 F.3d 788, 790 (10th Cir. 2006). In making

these determinations, “we neither reweigh the evidence nor substitute our

judgment for that of the agency.” Casias v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs.,

933 F.2d 799, 800 (10th Cir. 1991).

Appellate Case: 07-1121 Document: 010164396 Date Filed: 11/06/2007 Page: 2 
-3-

II.

Mr. Novak argues on appeal that the ALJ (1) failed to adequately explain

why he did not meet a listed impairment; (2) incorrectly assessed his credibility

and subjective complaints of pain; and (3) improperly posed a hypothetical

question to the vocational expert (VE) that did not include all of his impairments.

Mr. Novak advanced these same arguments before the district court, and the

court rejected them all. Indeed, the court explained that the ALJ adequately

discussed why Mr. Novak did not meet the criteria of a listed impairment,

correctly assessed his credibility in light of the substantial evidence in the record,

and posed a hypothetical question to the VE that accurately reflected Mr. Novak’s

limitations. See Aplt. App. at 685-724. 

The district court’s analysis of these claims was detailed, accurate, and

complete. Moreover, the district court employed the same standard that governs

our review, and we see no reason to repeat that analysis here. Accordingly,

having reviewed the parties’ briefs, the administrative record, and the relevant

legal authority, we affirm the district court’s judgment for substantially the same

reasons as those articulated in its order dated February 2, 2007. 

Mr. Novak’s motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is granted.

Entered for the Court

Timothy M. Tymkovich

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 07-1121 Document: 010164396 Date Filed: 11/06/2007 Page: 3