Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03223/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03223-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Otis R. Bowen
Appellee
Robert D. Holroyd
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

ROBERT D. HOLROYD, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

OTIS R. BOWEN, Secretary of 

Health & Human Services of 

the United States, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FILED 

Uoited States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

APPEALS 

JAN 3 0 1991 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-3223 

(D.C. No. 88-4145) 

(D. Kan.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and TACHA, 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. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This appeal is from an order of the district court affirming 

the final decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

(Secretary) denying plaintiff Robert Holroyd's application for a 

period of disability and disability insurance benefits under 

sections 216(i) and 223, respectively, of the Social Security Act. 

* 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: 90-3223 Document: 010110083608 Date Filed: 01/30/1991 Page: 1 
Plaintiff claimed he is disabled under section 1614(a)(3)(A) of 

the Act and thus entitled to benefits as a result of "head injury 

with trauma, loss of left eye vision, loss of hearing, and no 

smell or taste." The administrative law judge (ALJ) found 

plaintiff was not under a disability as defined by the Act. The 

Appeals Council denied plaintiff's request for review. Thus, the 

ALJ's denial of benefits stands as a final order of the Secretary. 

The district court determined substantial evidence supported the 

Secretary's decision and affirmed. Plaintiff contends on appeal 

that the district court erred in concluding the Secretary's 

determination was supported by substantial evidence. We affirm. 

Plaintiff worked from 1967 to 1979 as a construction worker, 

delivery driver, and custodian. In 1979, he suffered a 

significant head injury in a motorcycle accident and underwent 

surgery as a result. Since that accident, plaintiff has been 

plagued by various problems relating to blindness in his left eye, 

loss of sense of smell, loss of sense of taste, loss of hearing in 

the left ear, and tinnitus in his right ear. Plaintiff last 

worked on December 12, 1986. 

After considering the consultation reports of two 

psychiatrists, a psychologist, and a vocational evaluator and the 

testimony of plaintiff and a vocational expert at the hearing, the 

ALJ found plaintiff could not return to his former work but 

determined the government had met its burden of proving plaintiff 

could perform other work in the economy. See Gossett Y...!... Bowen, 

862 F.2d 802, 804-05 (10th Cir. 1988). The ALJ concluded 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-3223 Document: 010110083608 Date Filed: 01/30/1991 Page: 2 
plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Social 

Security Act and thus was not entitled to benefits. 

We review to determine whether the record as a whole contains 

substantial evidence supporting the Secretary's determination. 42 

U.S.C. § 405(g). We must evaluate the record to ascertain whether 

there is evidence to support that decision, regardless of whether 

we would have reached a different result based on the record. 

Brown Y...!.. Bowen, 801 F.2d 361, 362 (10th Cir. 1986). Evidence is 

not substantial if it is overwhelmed by other evidence or if it is 

actually mere conclusion. Williams Y...!.. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750 

(10th Cir. 1988). 

A review of the record in this case convinces us the district 

court did not err in concluding the Secretary's decision was 

supported by substantial evidence. Based on the evidence 

considered at the hearing, the ALJ reasonably concluded there are 

a significant number of jobs existing in the local and national 

economies that plaintiff is capable of performing. The vocational 

expert testified that an individual with disabilities similar to 

those suffered by plaintiff was able to perform light unskilled 

jobs such as order filler or packager. This conclusion is 

supported by the statements of the two consulting psychiatrists. 

These doctors implicitly indicated plaintiff could perform light 

work within certain limitations. Plaintiff contends the ALJ 

ignored the evidence provided by the psychologist and the 

vocational evaluator. It is clear from the record, however, that 

these reports were considered in light of the total record. 

Because the ALJ found plaintiff was capable of engaging in 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-3223 Document: 010110083608 Date Filed: 01/30/1991 Page: 3 
substantial gainful activity, he properly concluded plaintiff was 

not under a disability within the meaning of the Social Security 

Act and thus was not entitled to the requested benefits. The 

order of the district court is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue 

forthwith. 

-4-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-3223 Document: 010110083608 Date Filed: 01/30/1991 Page: 4