Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-07-01122/USCOURTS-ca10-07-01122-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael J. Astrue
Appellee
Scott A. Duke
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 appeal.

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

SCOTT A. DUKE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,*

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 07-1122

(D.C. No. 06-cv-836-PSF)

(D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

**

Before KELLY, PORFILIO, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

Scott A. Duke appeals from an order of the district court affirming the

Commissioner’s decision denying his applications for disability insurance benefits

Appellate Case: 07-1122 Document: 010164236 Date Filed: 11/06/2007 Page: 1
As part of the procedure for testing modifications to the disability 1

determination process, the step requiring Mr. Duke to seek reconsideration was

eliminated in this case and he was able to request a hearing after the initial denial

of his applications. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.906(b)(4).

-2-

and supplemental security income. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291

and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and we affirm. 

Mr. Duke alleged that he became disabled because of bipolar disorder and

low thyroid. The agency denied his applications initially and he requested a

hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). After the hearing, the ALJ 1

determined that Mr. Duke was not eligible for benefits, concluding that he was

not disabled at step five of the analysis because he could perform a significant

number of jobs in the regional and national economies. See Williams v. Bowen,

844 F.2d 748, 750-52 (10th Cir. 1988) (explaining five-step process for

evaluating claims for disability benefits). The Appeals Council denied

Mr. Duke’s request for review, making the ALJ’s decision the Commissioner’s

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

Mr. Duke sought review in the district court, and that court affirmed the ALJ’s

decision. This appeal followed. 

We review the Commissioner’s decision to determine whether the factual

findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record and whether the

correct legal standards were applied. Winfrey v. Chater, 92 F.3d 1017, 1019

(10th Cir. 1996). On appeal, Mr. Duke raises the same issues that he raised in the

Appellate Case: 07-1122 Document: 010164236 Date Filed: 11/06/2007 Page: 2
-3-

district court. First, he argues that the ALJ erred in determining his residual

functional capacity. Second, he contends that the ALJ erred in holding that the

Commissioner met his burden at step five. The district court’s order thoroughly

analyzed the record and the findings of the ALJ using the same standard of review

that governs our review. Having reviewed the parties’ briefs, the record, and the

applicable law, we conclude that the district court’s analysis is correct and we

see no reason to repeat that analysis here. Accordingly, the judgment is

AFFIRMED for the same reasons articulated in the district court’s order dated

February 1, 2007.

Entered for the Court

John C. Porfilio

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 07-1122 Document: 010164236 Date Filed: 11/06/2007 Page: 3