* 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. Although we have substituted the Commissioner for the Secretary in the caption, in t he text we continue to refer to the Secretary because 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** This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel.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.

*** Honorable John W. Lungstrum, District Judge, UnitedStates District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 12/9/96 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE J. LAWSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. SHIRLEY S. CHATER, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, *

Defendant-Appellee. No. 96-5098 (D.C. No. 95-C-419-J) (N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT **
Before BALDOCK and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges, and LUN GSTRUM, *** District Judge.-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 denyi ng her application for disability and supplemental security insurance bene fits. After plaintiff’s January 21, 1995 application was denied by the Secr etary initially and upon reconsideration, a hearing was held before an admin istrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ determined at step four of the sequential a nalysis, see Williams v. Bowen , 844 F.2d 748, 750-52 (10th Cir. 1988), that plain tiff was not disabled, and the Appeals Council denied review, thereby maki ng the ALJ’s decision the final decision of the Secretary. Plaintiff appeale d the denial of benefits to the district court, and the parties consented to procee d before a United States Magistrate Judge. On March 5, 1996, the magistrate judge issued an order affirming the Secretary’s denial of benefits. On appeal, plaintiff claims that the ALJ erred in r elying on post-hearing evidence without affording her the opportunity to o btain representation to assist her in rebutting the evidence and that the ALJ fail ed to properly develop her medical history for the twelve months preceding his decision. Plaintiff also-3-

argues that the ALJ failed to consider her recurren t illness in his determination that she could perform her past relevant work. We review plaintiff’s arguments with the following standards in mind. “The ALJ’s decision must be based on substantial re cord evidence. Substantial evidence is defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. In addition, the failure to apply the appropriate legal standards also constitutes ground s for reversal.” Henrie v. United States Dep’t of Health & Human Servs. , 13 F.3d 359, 360 (10th Cir. 1993)(citations and quotations omitted). We have reviewed the record and have determined that the magistrate judge was correct in his conclusion that the record conta ins substantial evidence in support of the ALJ’s determination of no disabilityand that the ALJ applied the correct legal standards. We affirm the district co urt order of March 5, 1996, for substantially the same reasons set forth therein.-4-

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

Entered for the Court Mary Beck Briscoe Circuit Judge