* The case is unanimously ordered submitted without o ral argument pursuant

to Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G ). This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines o f law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

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

### FEB 12 2003 

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

LESA F. MORRIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security Administration,

Defendant - Appellee. No. 02-7060 D.C. No. 01-CV-41-W (E.D. Oklahoma)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before EBEL , BALDOCK , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

Lesa F. Morris appeals the denial of her 1995 appli cation for Social Security supplemental-income and disability-insuran ce benefits. Social Security regulations implement a five-step sequential proces s to evaluate a disability claim. See Williams v. Bowen , 844 F.2d 748, 750–52 (10th Cir. 1988) (detailing-2-

steps). As to her claim for benefits for the perio d between 1993—the onset of her alleged disability—until the end of 1994, the admin istrative law judge (“ALJ”) denied benefits at step one of the relevant analysi s, concluding that in light of her substantial gainful employment during that period, Morris was not disabled . As to her claim for benefits for the period after 1994 , the ALJ denied benefits at step four, finding that Morris’ residual functional capa city (RFC) was limited only by poor visual acuity and that she could return to herpast work as a packager, egg gatherer, poultry worker, silver wrapper, and cafet eria attendant. Both the Appeals Council and the district court affirmed the ALJ’s denial of benefits. We exercise jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Our review, however, is limite d to evaluating whether the factual findings are supported by substantial evide nce and whether the correct legal standards were applied. Goatcher v. United States Dep’t of Health & Human Servs. , 52 F.3d 288, 289 (10th Cir. 1995). Morris challe nges the ALJ’s denial of benefits for the period after 1994 on two grounds. First, she contends that the ALJ failed to consider her alleged impairm ents in combination, as required by applicable law. See Hargis v. Sullivan , 945 F.2d 1482, 1491 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(C)). Second, she argues that the ALJ failed properly to assess the credibility of he r testimony at the hearing.-3-

In support of these claims, however, Morris essenti ally contends that the medical record shows that her alleged impairments w ere more serious or severe than determined by the ALJ. We may not reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the agency. Casias v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , 933 F.2d 799, 800 (10th Cir. 1991). Further, the recor d does not support Morris’ assertions that the ALJ failed to view her alleged impairments in combination or improperly assessed her credibility. More importan tly, Morris does not argue or demonstrate that the ALJ erred in his determination of her residual functional capacity or in his ultimate conclusion that she cou ld perform her past relevant work. Claimant bears the burden at step four to sh ow that she is unable to return to her past jobs or occupations. See Andrade v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , 985 F.2d 1045, 1051 (10th Cir. 1993). Because we c onclude, based on our careful review of the record, that substantial evid ence in the record supports the ALJ’s ultimate determinations as to Morris’ RFC andher resulting ability to work, we must affirm the agency’s denial of benefit s. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Carlos F. Lucero Circuit Judge