* Effective March 1, 1997, John J. Callahan was appoi nted Acting

Commissioner of Social Security. Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c), John J. Callahan is substituted for former commissioner Shi rley S. Chater as the defendant in this action. Effective March 31, 1995 , the functions of the Secretary of Health and Human Services in social security cas es were transferred to the Commissioner of Social Security. P.L. No. 103-296.

** This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel.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. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### SEP 3 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
FRANCES STANLEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. JOHN J. CALLAHAN, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, *

Defendant-Appellee. No. 97-5018 (D.C. No. 95-CV-818-J) (N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT **

Before BRORBY, LOGAN, and HENRY, 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 oral1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties cons ented to proceed before

the magistrate judge.
2 This appeal concerns the second administrative deci sion denying Ms. Stanley’s application for benefits. Initially, the administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that Ms. Stanley was not disabled and the Appeals Council denied review. On July 29, 1992, the district court remanded the case for further proceedings. The Appeals Council vacated the ALJ’s order and remanded the case to the ALJ, who held a supplemental hearing on January 14, 1994. -2- argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff-appellant Frances Stanley appeals from anorder of the magistrate judge 1 affirming the decision of the Commissioner to denydisability insurance benefits on the grounds that she was not disabled a s of September 30, 1989, the date her insured status lapsed. 2 We exercise our jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(3) and affirm. Ms. Stanley resigned from her position as a spool-w inder for a manufacturer of fishing rods and reels in 1985, due to problems with her back and high blood pressure. In September 1989, she receiv ed an initial diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (lupus), a progressive disease characterized by exacerbations and remissions. During that month, atreating physician noted that she was “not in an apparent flare,” R. Vol. I at 19 9, that the disease was “quiescent,” id. at 198, and that her symptoms required nothing str onger than a-3-

nonsteroidal agent, id. at 197-98. Ms. Stanley filed an application for d isability benefits on September 22, 1989. Based on the medical evidence, as well as the testi mony provided by Ms. Stanley, her son, a medical expert, and a vocat ional expert, the administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that Ms. Stanley did have lupus as of September 30, 1989, but the disease did not impair her ability to do basic work activities at that time. He therefore determined, at step two of the five-step process for evaluating social security claims, that Ms. Stanley did not have a medically severe impairment or, alternatively, at step four, that sh e was able to perform her past relevant work. See Williams v. Bowen , 844 F.2d 748, 750-51 (10th Cir. 1988) (discussing the five-step process in detail). The Appeals Council denied Ms. Stanley’s request for review, so that the decision of the ALJ became the final decision of the Commissioner. On judicial review in the district court, Ms. Stanl ey argued that the Commissioner’s decision should be reversed for fourreasons: (1) the ALJ failed to apply the “treating physician rule” or follow th e previous order of remand; (2) the ALJ improperly discounted the credibility of he r testimony; (3) the ALJ refused to recognize that her lupus prevented her f rom working on a regular basis; and (4) the ALJ improperly evaluated her complaints of pain. In a thoughtful and well-drafted opinion, the magistrate judge addresse d each of Ms. Stanley’s issues,-4-

rejected her arguments, and affirmed the decision o f the Commissioner. On appeal, Ms. Stanley essentially repeats the argumen ts she made to the magistrate judge. We review the Commissioner’s decision to determine whether her factual findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record viewed as a whole and whether she applied the correct legal standards . See Castellano v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs. , 26 F.3d 1027, 1028 (10th Cir. 1994). Because Ms. Stanley does not dispute that her insured statu s expired on September 30, 1989, our focus is on whether the evidence establis hed that she was disabled prior to that date. See Miller v. Chater , 99 F.3d 972, 975 (10th Cir. 1996). After a review of the entire record, we determine t hat Ms. Stanley failed to sustain her burden. We AFFIRM the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma for substanti ally the same reasons stated in the order of the magistrate judge, a copy thereof b eing attached hereto. Entered for the Court

Wade Brorby Circuit Judge