Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05220/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05220-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kirby W. Routt
Appellant
Louis W. Sullivan
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

KIRBY W. ROUTT, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FI LED 

United States C.ourt of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

JUN 10 1991 

.&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) No. 90-5220 

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

Health and Human Services, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) (D.C. No. 89-C-906-C) 

) ( N. D. Okla. ) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, SETH, and SEYMOUR, 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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Appellant/claimant Kirby W. Routt appeals from the district 

court's determination that substantial evidence supports the 

Secretary of Health and Human Services' denial of his claim for 

benefits under Titles II and XVI 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: 90-5220 Document: 010110118874 Date Filed: 06/10/1991 Page: 1 
.I 

Claimant alleged disability resulting from a bad back 

headaches, and blurred vision. Appellant's brief 

and legs, 

at 2. His 

request for benefits was denied administratively, and after a de 

nova hearing, the administrative law judge (ALJ) also denied 

claimant's request for benefits. The Appeals Council denied 

review, making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the 

Secretary. Hill v. Sullivan, 924 F.2d 972, 973 (10th Cir. 1991). 

Judicial review of the Secretary's determination is limited; 

the court's only function is to determine whether the record as a 

whole contains substantial evidence to support the Secretary's 

decision. Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750 (10th Cir. 1988). 

Substantial evidence is such evidence that a reasonable mind might 

accept as adequate to support the conclusion reached by the 

Secretary. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971); 

Broadbent v. Harris, 698 F.2d 407, 414 (10th Cir. 1983). 

On appeal, claimant contends that 1) the ALJ's determination 

that he was not disabled because he retained the ability to do 

light and sedentary work, with certain limitations, was not 

supported by substantial evidence, 2) the ALJ failed to properly 

develop claimant's case at his de novo hearing, and 3) the ALJ 

posed an incomplete hypothetical question to the vocational expert 

at claimant's hearing. 

Based on our careful review of the entire appellate record 

and parties' briefs, we conclude that substantial evidence 

supports the Secretary's findings that claimant was not disabled. 

Therefore, for substantially the same reasons contained in the 

United States magistrate judge's findings and recommendations 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-5220 Document: 010110118874 Date Filed: 06/10/1991 Page: 2 
' . ·' 

dated May 24, 1990, and the district court order dated September 

27, 1990, the judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-5220 Document: 010110118874 Date Filed: 06/10/1991 Page: 3