* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 1/24/97 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

CHARLES R. FOX,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. SHIRLEY S. CHATER, Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant-Appellee. No. 96-7068 (D.C. No. CV-95-255-B) (E.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before ANDERSON, KELLY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a dec ision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Th e case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Plaintiff-appellant Charles R. Fox (claimant) appea ls the district court’s decision upholding the Commissioner’s denial of dis ability benefits and supplemental security income. Claimant alleged that he had been disabled, since April 1, 1989, from the residual effects of three b ack surgeries. The administrative law judge (ALJ) determined, at step five of the applicable analysis, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920, that, although clai mant could not perform his past relevant work as a truck driver, he remained c apable of performing other work existing in the national economy. The Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ’s determination the Commissioner’s f inal decision. This court reviews the Commissioner’s decision onlyto insure that the record contains substantial evidence supporting herfactual findings and that she applied the law correctly. Bean v. Chater , 77 F.3d 1210, 1213 (10th Cir. 1995). At step five, the Commissioner bears the burden of establishing that there is work existing in the national economy that claimant rema ins capable of performing. Saleem v. Chater , 86 F.3d 176, 178 (10th Cir. 1996). Claimant argues that, in discrediting his complaint s of disabling pain, the ALJ failed to consider his inability to afford medi cal treatment and his fear of addiction to prescription pain medication as justif ications for not seeking further treatment. In addition, claimant asserts that the ALJ should have contacted his treating and consulting physicians concerning his ability to perform the sitting-3-

requirements of sedentary work. We need not addres s any of these arguments, however, because claimant failed to raise these spe cific issues in his objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. Soliz v. Ch ater , 82 F.3d 373, 375-76 (10th Cir. 1996). Further, the ALJ’s analysis of c laimant’s complaints of disabling pain was otherwise adequate. See Kepler v. Chater , 68 F.3d 387, 390-91 (10th Cir. 1995) (discussing proper analysis of complaints of disabling pain). We also need not address the issue of whether the A LJ erred by determining that claimant could perform a full rang e of sedentary work and denying claimant benefits based upon the applicatio n of the medical-vocational guidelines, see 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2, because the A LJ also relied upon the testimony of the vocational expert (VE) to deny benefits. While claimant further argues that the ALJ’s reliance on the VE’s testimony was misplaced because the questions eliciting that test imony did not reflect all of claimant’s limitations, review of the record indicates that the ALJ’s questions to the VE included all the limitations the ALJ found t o be credible. See Gay v. Sullivan , 986 F.2d 1336, 1341 (10th Cir. 1993). There is n o reason apparent from this record for this court not to defer to the ALJ’ s credibility determination. See Kepler , 68 F.3d at 391 (discussing appellate review of AL J’s credibility determination).-4-

The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the Eastern District of Oklahoma is, therefore, AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge