Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-07088/USCOURTS-ca10-92-07088-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charlene Shoun
Appellant
Louis W. Sullivan
Appellee

Document Text:

FILL D 

Unlt.ed States Court of Appealf UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FEB 12 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk CHARLENE SHOUN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

LOUIS w. SULLIVAN, M.D., Secretary of 

Health and Human Services, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 92-7088 

(D.C. No. CIV-91-371-S) 

( E . D . Okla. ) 

Before LOGAN and MOORE, Circuit Judges, and BELOT,** District 

Judge. 

**Honorable Monti L. Belot, District Judge, United States District 

Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation . 

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 estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-7088 Document: 010110170352 Date Filed: 02/12/1993 Page: 1 
Claimant Charlene Shoun appeals from an order of the district 

court affirming the Secretary's denial of Social Security 

disability benefits. We affirm. 

On April 17, 1989, claimant filed an application for 

disability benefits alleging disability commencing June 30, 1981, 

due to sarcoidosis with peripheral neuropathy . She was last 

insured for benefits on March 31, 1986. The application was 

denied, as was the request for reconsideration . Claimant 

requested de novo review by an administrative law judge (ALJ). 

Although the ALJ recognized claimant has progressive conditions of 

incontinence and sarcoidosis, he concluded that from 1981 to 1986 

claimant was not disabled. He found that claimant's impairments 

did not meet or equal a listed impairment and her complaints were 

not credible and were inconsistent with the objective medical 

evidence. The ALJ concluded that claimant from 1981 to 1986 could 

do light or sedentary work, including her past work as a 

secretary/receptionist or 

Council declined review, 

decision of the Secretary. 

admitting 

the ALJ's 

clerk. 

decision 

When the Appeals 

became the final 

Claimant appealed to the district court. The magistrate 

judge made findings and a recommendation to affirm the Secretary. 

The magistrate judge determined that claimant did not prove, based 

on objective medical evidence, that she had a medically 

determinable physical or mental impairment prior to the expiration 

of her insured status on March 31, 1986. Additionally, the 

magistrate judge determined that there was no evidence that 

claimant's condition met the listing of impairments for a 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-7088 Document: 010110170352 Date Filed: 02/12/1993 Page: 2 
somatoform disorder. The district court adopted the magistrate 

judge's findings and recommendation. 

On appeal, claimant argues (1) her bladder and bowel 

incontinence precluded her from being able to perform substantial, 

gainful activity since 1982; (2) the Secretary failed to consider 

her impairments in combination; (3) the medical evidence and 

testimony established that her disability existed, was severe, and 

precluded her from working since 1982; and (4) she was disabled 

because she met the listing of impairments. 

In reviewing the decision of the Secretary, our 

review is limited to determining whether the decision is 

based on substantial evidence. The court cannot reweigh 

the evidence nor substitute its judgment for that of the 

agency. However, this does not mean that our review is 

only cursory. To find that the Secretary's decision is 

supported by substantial evidence, there must be 

sufficient relevant evidence in the record that a 

reasonable person might deem adequate to support the 

ultimate conclusion. A decision is not based on 

substantial evidence if it is overwhelmed by other 

evidence in the record or if there is a mere scintilla 

of evidence supporting it. The ALJ's decision is also 

subject to reversal if he or she applied the incorrect 

legal standard. 

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

omitted). 

Upon consideration of the briefs and appendices on appeal, we 

conclude there is substantial evidence to support the Secretary's 

conclusion. Accordingly, we affirm for substantially the reasons 

stated in the ALJ's decision. 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-7088 Document: 010110170352 Date Filed: 02/12/1993 Page: 3 
The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

4 

Appellate Case: 92-7088 Document: 010110170352 Date Filed: 02/12/1993 Page: 4