* Effective March 31, 1995, the functions of the Secr etary of Health and

Human Services in social security cases were transf erred to the Commissioner of Social Security. P.L. No. 103-296. Pursuant to Fe d. R. App. P. 43(c), Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner of Social Security, is substituted for Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services, as the defe ndant in this action. Although we have substituted the Commissioner for the Secretary in the caption, in the text we continue to refer to the Secretary b ecause she was the appropriate party at the time of the underlying decision.

** This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel.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

DIXIE KNIGHTEN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. SHIRLEY S. CHATER, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, *

Defendant-Appellee. No. 96-6149 (D.C. No. CIV-95-720-C) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT **

Before PORFILIO, BALDOCK, and HENRY, Circuit Judges

.-2-

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. Plaintiff appeals from a district court order affir ming the Secretary’s decision denying her applications for disability in surance and supplemental security income benefits. The Administrative Law J udge (ALJ) denied benefits at step four, see Williams v. Bowen , 844 F.2d 748, 750-52 (10th Cir. 1988), determining that plaintiff could perform a full ran ge of light work, which includes her past relevant work as a seamstress. Plaintiff complains that the record does not contain substantial evidence to support the Sec retary’s decision of no disability, that the ALJ erred in deciding that pla intiff could perform her past relevant work, and that the ALJ’s failure to elicittestimony from a vocational expert was error. Plaintiff filed her applications in March 1992, all eging disability because of poor eyesight and hearing, arthritis, diabetes, and heart problems. Her applications were denied administratively. After two hearings before the ALJ, the Appeals Council denied review, and the ALJ’s denial became the final decision of the Secretary.-3-

“We review the Secretary’s decision to determine wh ether it is supported by substantial evidence and whether the Secretary appl ied the correct legal standards.” Washington v. Shalala , 37 F.3d 1437, 1439 (10th Cir. 1994). Our review of the record reveals substantial evidence t o support the Secretary’s decision and convinces us that the correct legal st andards were applied. We affirm. The ALJ recognized that the medical reports show th at plaintiff has been diagnosed at various time with diabetes mellitus, n on-insulin dependent; hypertension; degenerative joint disease of the rig ht hip; arteriosclerotic heart disease; and a depressive disorder. The record evi dences that plaintiff’s diabetes is controllable with diet and exercise, but that pl aintiff has repeatedly failed to follow prescribed regimens. Despite this, the reco rd contains no evidence that the diabetes has caused any damage. The record indicat es that plaintiff’s vision problems are correctable with glasses and that theymay improve if the diabetes is controlled. The ALJ found that the record indicate d no organ damage from hypertension, which condition is controllable with medication. The degenerative joint disease is not shown to be severe because rec ent physical examinations showed full range of motion in all joints without s ignificant pain symptoms. The record contains no medical findings of coronary art ery disease. The ALJ noted that plaintiff has a history of varicose veins, butthere are no signs of circulatory-4-

problems. Though the record does indicate a depres sive disorder, the ALJ found no evidence of a full blown mental impairment. Based on the foregoing, the ALJ found that plaintif f retains the residual functional capacity limited to performing light wor k. Our review of the record confirms this finding. Of particular note are the comments of the consultative physician in two separate reports to the effect that plaintiff could be employed with light work. The ALJ was correct in his findin g that plaintiff’s past work as a seamstress was light work and that she retained the residual functional capacity to perform that work. Plaintiff argues on appeal that the ALJ failed to c onsider her subjective complaints of pain associated with her various ailm ents. We agree with the district court that plaintiff’s numerous subjective complaints were only partially supported by the medical evidence. The credibility determination is within the province of the ALJ. See Hamilton v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs. , 961 F.2d 1495, 1499 (10th Cir. 1992). Contrary to plai ntiff’s assertion, the ALJ properly considered plaintiff’s allegations of pain . See Luna v. Bowen , 834 F.2d 161, 164-65 (10th Cir. 1987). Finally, because the record supports the ALJ’s dete rmination that plaintiff can perform her past relevant work, the ALJ was und er no duty to obtain vocational expert testimony. See Musgrave v. Sullivan , 966 F.2d 1371, 1376-5-

(10th Cir. 1992). The burden remains on the plaint iff to show disability and does not shift to the Secretary until plaintiff establis hes a disability which prevents her from performing her past relevant work. Id.

The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Robert H. Henry Circuit Judge