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** This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel.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

*** Honorable Ruggero J. Aldisert, Senior Circuit Judge , United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by design ation.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 9/11/96 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

LENA M. HASLERIG,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

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

Defendant-Appellee. No. 95-5225 (D.C. No. 94-C-237-W) (N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT **

Before TACHA, ALDISERT, *** and BALDOCK, 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. Petitioner Lena M. Haslerig appeals from the distri ct court’s order affirming the decision of the Secretary of Health a nd Human Services denying her application for supplemental income benefits under the Social Security Act. Agency regulations establish a five-step sequential analysis to evaluate disability claims. See Williams v. Bowen , 844 F.2d 748, 750-52 (10th Cir. 1988)(describing five steps in detail). Here, the administrative law judge (ALJ) reached step four of the evaluation, concluding that claimant could return to her past relevant work. Our jurisdiction over this app eal arises under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of the a gency’s decision is limited to determining whether the decision is supported by su bstantial evidence and whether the correct legal standards were applied. Castellano v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs. , 26 F.3d 1027, 1028 (10th Cir. 1994). On appeal, claimant contends that 1) her past relev ant work did not include her work as a cook, 2) the ALJ erred in determining that claimant could perform her past relevant work as a housekeeper, and 3) the Appeals Council improperly-3-

weighed the opinion of claimant’s treating physicia n, Dr. Davis, submitted after the ALJ’s decision. Our review of the record on appeal, together with t he parties’ briefs, leads us to conclude that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion that claimant is not disabled under the Social Security Act. Claimant’s third issue regarding Dr. Davis’s opinion, was not presented to the district court. That issue is waived, and we will not consider it on appeal. See Crow v. Shalala , 40 F.3d 323, 324 (10th Cir. 1994). The judgment of the Uni ted States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Deanell Reece Tacha Circuit Judge