A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt o gr antthe part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i thoutor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. T he H onor abl e J ohn L . K ane, Seni orD i s tr i ctJ udge, U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct ** C our tforthe D i s tr i ctof C ol or ado, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A u gu s t10,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT TI M OTH Y C . HEI NR I TZ,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. J O A NN E B. BA RN HA RT, C o m m iss io n e r o f

S o c ial S e c u rity A dm i ni s tr at i on,

D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. N o. 05- 5208 (D . C . N o. 04 -C V -618-SA J) (N .D . O k la .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e BR ORBY and EBEL , C i r cui tJ udges , and KANE , D i s tr i ctJ udge. **

Pl ai nt i ff- appel l antT i m othyC . H ei nr i t z appe al s fr om t he or derent er ed by the di s tr i ctcourtaff

i r m i ng the Soci al Secur i tyC om m i s s i oner ’ s deci s i on deny i ng- 2-

h is a p p lica tio n fo r d isa b ili tyin su ra n c e b e n e fits u n d e r th e S o c ial S e c u rityA c t. E x e r c i s i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r4 2 U. S . C. § 4 0 5 ( g ) a n d 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 , we a ffi r m. I. In a decis i on i ssued i n A ug ust20 03 , t he ad m i nis trat i ve law j ud ge (A L J) deni ed pl ai nt i ff’ s appl i cat i on forbenef i t s ats t ep fi ve of the fi ve- s t ep s equent i al ev alua ti o n p roc ess fo r de term ining d isab il ity , fin d ing that: ( 1 ) plainti ff ’s “i m pai r m ent s of s t atus pos tr i ghthi p r epl ace m ent ; r i ghts ens or i neur al hear i ng l os s ; and a ge ner al i zed a nxi etydi s or der. . . ar e s ever e i m pai r m ent s bySoci al Secur i tydefi ni t i on, ” A pl t . A pp. , V ol . 2 at21; ( 2) pl ai nt i ff’ s i m pai r m ent s do not m eetorequal anyl i s t ed i m pai r m entunders t ep thr ee of t he contr ol l i ng re g u la tio n s , i d. ; ( 3) pl ai nt i ff’ s “i m pai r m ent s l i m i thi m t o uns ki l l ed l i ghtl evel w or k act i vi tythatdoes notr equi r e more t han occ as i onal cl i m bi ng, bal anci ng, s t oopi ng, kneel i ng, cr ouchi ng, orcr aw l i ng; w or ki ng i n the pr es ence of noi s e; or act i ve i nt er act i on w i th t he gene r al publ i c, ” i d. a t 2 3 ; (4 ) p lain tiff d o e s n o t re tain the resi du al fun ct i on al capac i ty(R F C ) t o p erform t he requ i rem ents of h i s past sk il led w o rk a s a g en era l m an ag er, m ark eti n g d ir ec tor, an d o p era ti o n s m an ag er, i d. a t 2 0 , 2 4 ; b u t (5 ) b a se d o n th e h e a rin g tes tim o n yo f th e v o c a tio n a l ex p e rt, ther e ar e mul t i pl e uns ki l l ed j obs i n the r egi onal and nat i onal economyt hat p lain tiff c a n p e rfo rm , an d th e a v a ilab le jo b s in c lu d e tick e t tak e r, ca fe ter ia a tte n d a n t, c le a n e r, b e n c h a s s e m b le r, a n d a d d re s s e r, i d. at24- 25.- 3-

I n J ul y2004, t he A ppeal s C ounci l deni ed pl ai nt i ff’ s r eques tforr evi ew of the A L J’s d ec isi o n . P lai n ti ff then fil ed a c o m p lai n t i n the d istri ct co u rt . In Sept ember2005, the magi s tr at e j udge, s i tt i ng bycons entof the part i es and by des i gnat i on of the di s tr i ctcourtpur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 636( c) , ent er ed an or der a n d a re late d ju d g m e n t affirm in g th e d e n ial o f p lain tiff ’s a p p lica tio n fo r d isa b ili ty benef i t s . T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. B eca us e the A ppeal s C ounci l deni ed r evi ew , the A L J ’ s deci s i on i s the C o m m is s io n e r’ s fin a l d e c is io n fo r p u rp o s e s o f th is a p p e a l. See D oyalv. B arnh art , 331 F. 3d 758, 759 ( 10th C i r . 2003) . I n r evi ew i ng the A L J ’ s deci s i on, “w e nei therr ew ei gh the evi dence nors ubs t i tut e ourj udgm entforthatof the agenc y . ” C asi as v. Sec’y of Health & Hum an Servs. , 9 3 3 F . 2 d 7 9 9 , 8 0 0 (10 th C ir . 1991) . I ns t ead, w e r evi ew the A L J ’ s deci s i on onl y“t o det erm i ne w hetherthe fac tual fi ndi ngs ar e s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence i n the r ecor d and w hether the corr ectl egal s t andar ds w er e appl i ed. ” D oyal , 331 F. 3d at760. II. In th is a p p e a l, pla in tiff c laim s th a t “[ t]h e S tate a g e n c yre v iew in g e x p e rts di agnos ed hi m as havi ng an or gani c ment al di s or derdue t o al cohol i nduced dement i a, an affec t i ve di s or derand a s ubs t ance abus e di s or der . ” A pl t . O peni ng B r . a t1 0 . H e f

u r th e ra s s e r t s th a tt h e A L J c o m m i t t e d r e v e r s i b l e e rr o rb y: ( 1) fai l i ng t o pr oper l ycons i derand deve l op the admi ni s tr at i ve r ecor d; ( 2) fai l i ng to p e rfo rm a p ro p e r ste p -tw o e v a lu a tio n o f h is a lleg e d im p a irm e n ts; (3 ) fa ili n g to- 4-

properl yevaluat e t he o pini on s of D r. M al l gren, on e of h i s treat i ng ph y si ci ans; (4 ) fa ili n g to p ro p e rlye v a lu a te th e c re d ib ili tyo f h is a lleg a tio n s re g a rd in g h is i m pai r m ent s ; and ( 5) fai l i ng t o per form a pr opers t ep- fi ve eva l uat i on. Pl ai nt i ff’ s al l egat i ons and medi cal hi s t or yar e s etfor th i n det ai l i n the A L J ’ s deci s i on and the magi s tr at e j udge’ s or der . I n par t i cul ar , w e not e thatthe m ag istrate jud g e’s tho rou g h an d w ell -reaso n ed o rde r co n tai n s a d etail ed su m m ary of pl ai nt i ff’ s al l egat i ons , hi s m edi cal hi s t or y , and the admi ni s tr at i ve pr ocee di ngs b e lo w , s ee A p lt. A p p ., V o l. 1 a t 1 8 -2 5 , a n d w e w ill n o t r e p e a t th a t s u m m a ry h e re . H a v in g c a re f

u llyc o n sid e re d th e e x ten siv e a rg u m e n ts th a t ar e se t fo rth in pl ai nt i ff’ s appel l at e br i efs , w e ar e al s o convi nced thatthe A L J ’ s deni al of di s abi l i tybenef

i t s i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence i n the admi ni s tr at i ve r ecor d. C ons equent l y , w e do notdeem i tnece s s aryt o addr es s al l of the ar gum ent s advanc ed bypl ai nt i ff i n thi s appea l , and onl ybr i efl yaddr es s the foll ow i ng po i nts . A . T estim o n y o f the V o ca ti o n a l E x p er t. B e c a u se th e re is s u b sta n tial m e d ica l ev id e n c e in th e re c o rd th a t co n tra d icts th e v o c a t i o n a l e x p e r t ’ s t e s t i mon y , we r ej e c tp l a i n t i ff ’ s a r g u me n tt h a tt h e ALJ c o mm i t t e d r e v e r s i b l e e r r o rb y“ fa i l [ i n g ] t o a c k n o wl e d g e t h e t e s t i mo n yo f t h e VE thatthe mar ked l i m i t at i on i n [hi s ] abi l i tyi n the domai n of conc entr at i on, p e rs is te n c e , o r p a c e p re c lu d e d c o m p e titiv e w o rk .” A p lt. O p e n in g B r. a t 2 3 . W hi l e pl ai nt i ff i s corr ectthatthe Ps y chi atr i c R evi ew T echni que form t hatw as- 5-

pr epar ed and r evi ew ed byt he “St at e age ncyexpert s ” s t at ed thatpl ai nt i ff ha d a “mar ked degr ee of

l i m i t at i on” i n m ai nt ai ni ng conce ntr at i on, per s i s t ence , orpace , i d. a t 2 1 ; see also A pl t . A pp. , V ol . 2 at316, thes e s ame exper t s al s o s ubm i t t ed a sep ara te, an d m o re sp ec ifi c, R F C asse ssm en t of p lai n ti ff ’s ab il ityto p erfo rm w or k- r el at ed ment al act i vi t i es . I n the l at t erdocument , the s t at e expe r t s concl uded th a t p lain tiff

w a s “ N o t S ig n ifica n tlyL im ited ” w ith re g a rd to se v e n tee n o f tw e n ty s p e c ific m e n ta l a c tiv itie s a s s o c ia te d w ith “ U n d e rs ta n d in g A n d M e m o ry,” “Sus t ai ned C oncentr at i on A nd Per s i s t ence , ” “Soci al I nt er act i on, ” and

“ A d a p ta tio n .” See A p lt. A p p ., V o l. 2 a t 3 2 0 -2 1 . In p a rticu lar , w ith re g a rd to conce ntr at i on and per s i s t ence , the s t at e expe r t s opi ned thatpl ai nt i ff w as not s i gni fi cant l yl i m i t ed w i th r egar d t o “[t ] he abi l i tyt o carryoutverys hor tand s i m pl e i ns truct i ons . ” Id. a t 3 2 0 . In a d d iti o n , w h ile th e sta te e x p e rts fo u n d th a t p lain tiff w a s “ M o d e ra tely L i m i t ed” w i th r egar d t o hi s abi l i t i es t o: ( 1) under s t and, r emem ber , and ca rryout d e ta ile d in s tru c tio n s ; a n d (2 ) i n te ra c t a p p ro p ri a te ly w ith th e g e n e ra l p u b lic , i d. at 320- 21, thes e l i m i t at i ons ar e noti ncons i s t entw i th the A L J ’ s R FC det erm i nat i on, i d. at22, 23 ( l i m i t i ng pl ai nt i ff “ t o uns ki l l ed l i ghtl evel w or k act i vi tythatdoes not r equi r e . . . act i ve i nt er act i on w i th the gene r al publ i c, ” and r el y i ng on opi ni on of c o n su ltativ e p sy c h o lo g ist th a t p lain tiff “ c o u ld u n d e rsta n d a n d re m e m b e r sim p le i ns truct i ons ; coul d conce ntr at e and pe r s i s ton s i m pl e t as ks ; coul d i nt er acton aB yc o n tra st, “ [ a ] G A F sc o re o f 4 1 -5 0 in d ica tes . . . se rio u s im p a irm e n t in 1 s oci al , occupa t i onal , ors chool funct i oni ng. ” Langl ey , 3 7 3 F .3 d a t 1 1 2 2 n .3 .

- 6- l i m i t ed bas i s w i th the gene r al publ i c and/ orcow or ker s ; and coul d adaptt o the d em an d s o f a sim p le w o rk e n v ir o n m en t”). W e al s o r ej ectpl ai nt i ff’ s ar gum entthatthe A L J err ed by“i gnor [i ng] the t es t i m onyof the voca t i onal expertw i tnes s that[he] coul d notw or k w i th a G l obal A s s es s m entof Funct i on of 50 t o 55. ” A pl t . O peni ng B r . at23 ( capi t al i zat i on m odi fi ed) . T o begi n w i th, as the magi s tr at e j udge not ed, “G A F sc or es ar e not co n side red ab so lute d eterm iners o f d isab il ity . ” A p lt . A p p . , V o l. 1 at 28 . M o re i m por t ant l y , how ever , a G A F sc or e of 51- 60 i ndi cat es onl ythata per s on w i l l have “moder at e di ffi cul tyi n s oci al oroccupa t i onal funct i oni ng. ’ ” L an gley v. B arnh art , 3 7 3 F . 3 d 1 1 1 6 , 1 1 2 2 n . 3 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) (qu o tat ion o m itted). W e a re the refo re 1 no tcon vinced, based o n the m edical and otherevidence in the record before us, that a G A F sco re o f 5 0 -55 is ne ce ssaril yinco n sist en t w ith the A L J’s d e te rm in a tio n th a t p la in tiff re ta in s th e R F C to p e rfo rm u n s k ille d w o rk . See 2 0 C .F .R . § 4 0 4 .1 5 6 8 (a ) (d e fin in g “ [ u ]n sk ill e d w o rk ” a s “ w o rk w h ich n e e d s littl e orno j udgm entt o do s i m pl e dut i es t hatcan be l earned on the j ob i n a s hor tper i od of t i m e”) . I n fac t , al though D r . K ent , t he cons ul t at i ve ps y chol ogi s t , as s i gned a G A F s c o re o f

5 0 -5 5 to p la in tiff, s ee A pl t . A pp. , V ol . 2 at243, D r . K ent n o n e th e les s c o n c lu d e d th a t p lain tiff c o u ld : (1 ) “ u n d e rsta n d a n d re m e m b e r sim p le t o m oder at el ycompl ex [w or k] i ns truct i ons ”; ( 2) “conc entr at e and pe r s i s ton- 7-

sim p le to m o d e ra telyc o m p lex [ w o rk ] ta sk s” ; an d (3 ) “ a d a p t to a sim p le to m oder at el ydemandi ng w or k envi r onm ent , ” i d. at242- 43. I n s um , l i ke the m a g istra te ju d g e , w e “ c o n c lu d e [ ] th a t th e A L J’s c o n c lu sio n w ith re g a rd to Pl ai nt i ff’ s m ent al funct i oni ng i s bas ed upon s ubs t ant i al evi dence i n the r ecor d. ” Id. , V o l. 1 a t 2 9 . A s a re su lt, w e “ c a n n o t sa yth a t th e A L J e rre d b yfa ili n g to re ly upon a s peci fi c G A F sc or e attr i but abl e t o Pl ai nt i ff. ” Id. at28- 29. B. D e ve l opment of

t he A dm i ni s t r at i ve R e c or d. Pl ai nt i ff c l ai m s the A L J err ed byfai l i ng t o or der“further neur ops y chol ogi cal t es t i ng. ” A pl t . O peni ng B r . at25. T hi s ar gum enti s w i thout m er i t . A s expl ai ned bythe magi s tr at e j udge: P lain tiff sp e c ifica llya ss e rts th a t a “ H a llstea d -R e itan tes t” s h o u ld h av e b ee n ad m inist ere d to P lai n ti ff. P lai n ti ff w as re fe rred fo r a Psy chol ogi cal E val uat i on and di d have s om e t es t i ng per form ed. [R . at238] . A s a r es ul tof thatt es t i ng, t he exa m i nernot ed that Pl ai nt i ff ha d s om e mem orydi ffi cul t i es . T he exa m i nerconcl uded that r ehabi l i t at i on coul d as s i s tPl ai nt i ff a nd not ed that“more ext ens i ve m emoryorneur ops y chol ogi cal t es t i ng m ayhel p t o det erm i ne w hetherhe i s capa bl e of unde r s t andi ng and r emem ber i ng m or e than sim p le in stru c tio n s o n a d a yto d a yb a sis .” [ R . at 2 4 2 ]. T h is e x a mi n e r , whi c h Pl a i n t i ff r e l i e s i n p a r tu p o n t o s u g g e s tt h a tt h e ALJ fa iled h is d u ties , su g g e sts th a t m o re tes tin g c o u ld b e o rd e re d to det erm i ne i f Pl ai nt i ff c oul d r et ai n m or e i nf or m at i on orcoul d i mpr ove m ore . Th e ex a m in e r d idn o t sta te th a t su c h tes tin gw a s n e c e ss a ry to d e ter m in e P la in tif

f’s c u rr e n t imp a irm e n ts . A p lt . A p p . , V o l. 1 at 29 (em p h asis ad d ed ).- 8-

C . The A LJ’ s St e p- Tw o Eval uat i on. Pl ai nt i ff c l ai m s the A L J fai l ed t o per form a pr opereval uat i on ats t ep tw o of the s equent i al eval uat i on pr oces s beca us e: ( 1) “the expe r t s of the St at e age ncy found that[he] s uffe r ed pr i m ar i l yfr om an or gani c ment al di s or der ”; and ( 2) he “c learlyh as a m ed icall yd eterm inab le org an ic m en tal d isord er a n d the A L J’s fa il u re to find itco n sti tuted a se v ere im p airm en t i s erro n eo u s. ” A p lt . O p en ing B r. at29 ( ci t i ng A pl t . A pp. , V ol . 2 at307; 20 C . F. R . § 404. 1520; and SSR 96- 3p at * 2 ). W e d isa g re e . A s n o ted b yth e m a g istra te ju d g e : A n A L J i s r equi r ed t o cons i dert he l i m i t at i ons t hata gi ven i m pai r m enthas on the cl ai m ant ’ s abi l i t i es t o w or k r athert han the l abel gi ven t o a di s eas e orai l m ent . Forexampl e, i f a c l ai m anthas di abet es , the A L J ’ s focus i s on the i m pai r m ent s t hatr es ul tfr om di abet es . I n t hi s cas e, the r ecor d r evea l s t hatt he A L J cons i der ed the m ent al i m pai r m ent s w hi ch w er e attr i but ed t o Pl ai nt i ff. A pl t . A pp. , V ol . 1 at30. D . D r . M al l gr e n. Pl ai nt i ff c l ai m s the A L J fai l ed t o pr oper l yeval uat e the opi ni ons of D r. M a llg re n , o n e o f

h is tre a tin g p h y sic ian s a t th e G ra n d L a k e M e n tal H e a lth C ent er . Pl ai nt i ff’ s tr eat i ng phy s i ci an ar gum enti s nots uppor t ed byt he r ecor d, and w e agr ee w i th t he fol l ow i ng anal y s i s of the magi s tr at e j udge:

Pl ai nt i ff c om pl ai ns t hatt he A L J di d notadequa t el yaddr es s t he r ecor ds of Pl ai nt i ff’ s tr eat i ng phy s i ci ans atG r and Lake M ent al H ea lth . T h e A L J firstn o ted th at th e re co rds b yD r. M all g ren w ere notcons i s t entw i th t he tr eatm entr ecor ds s ubm i t t ed fr om G r and Lake M ent al H eal th. T he A L J obs erved thatPl ai nt i ff’ s r ecor ds i ndi cat ed gr adual i m pr ovement . T he A L J t her efor e di d notgi ve contr ol l i ng- 9-

w ei ghtt o the opi ni on of D r . M al l gr en w hi ch i s cons i s t entw i th the r equi r ement s i n as s es s i ng a tr eat i ng phy s i ci an’ s opi ni on. Pl ai nt i ff a ddi t i onal l yas s er t s thatthe A L J fai l ed t o fol l ow the r emai ni ng fac t or s i n anal y zi ng the tr eat i ng phy s i ci an’ s opi ni on. T he A L J n o ted th a t D r. M a llg re n sa w P lain tiff o n tw o o c c a sio n s in J anuaryand A pr i l 2003. T he A L J di s cus s ed the natur e and e xt entof the r el at i ons hi p not i ng thatPl ai nt i ff w as s een pr i m ar i l ybya di ffe r ent doct or , thatPl ai nt i ff w as des cr i bed as s t abl e on medi cat i on and w as r e l e a s e d b e c a u s e h e d i d n o tme e tth e c r i t e r i a fo rtr e a t me n t . Th e ALJ di s cus s ed the r emai ni ng m edi cal evi dence i n the r ecor d and not ed D r. M a llg re n ’s o p in io n w a s in c o n s is te n t w ith th e tr e a tm e n t n o te s . T he A L J not ed thatm uch of D r . M al l gr en’ s opi ni on w as bas ed on Pl ai nt i ff’ s s ubj ect i ve comm ent s r atherthan the tr eatm entnot es . T he C our tcannotconcl ude thatthe A L J fai l ed t o eval uat e and gi ve r eas ons forgi vi ng l i t t l e w ei ghtt o the opi ni on of the tr eat i ng phy s i ci an. Id. at34- 35. E . T h e A L J’s C red i b i l i ty a n d S tep-Five D eterm i n ati on s. W e agr ee w i th t he magi s tr at e j udge that“the A L J ’ s [cr edi bi l i ty ] eval uat i on i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . ” Id. at35. Speci fi cal l y , w e agr ee thatt he ad m inistrati v e re co rd c o n tai n s su ffici en t evid en ce to su p p o rtthe A L J’s

“ c o n c lu sio n . . . tha t th e sy m p to m s e x p e rie n c e d b yth e c laim a n t ar e lim iti n g b u t, w hen compar ed w i th t he t ot al evi dence , nots ever e enough t o pr ecl ude al l t ypes of w or k. ” Id. , V o l. 2 a t 2 2 ; s ee als o i d. a t 2 5 (fin d in g th a t “c laim a n t’s te stim o n yis

. . . cre d ible o n lyto the ex tent co n sist en t w ith a re sidu al fu n cti o n al ca p ac ityfo r a w ide ra n g e o f li g h t w o rk” ). W e al s o r ej ectpl ai nt i ff’ s ar gum entt hat“the A L J fai l ed t o per form a pr oper eval uat i on ats t ep 5 of the s equent i al eval uat i on pr oces s . ” A pl t . O peni ng B r . at- 10-

4 5 (ca p it ali za ti o n m o d ifi ed ). F ir st, b ec au se w e h av e c o n clud ed that the A L J’s ste p -fiv e fin d in g th a t p lain tiff c a n p e rfo rm c e rta in u n sk ill e d lig h t jo b s is supp ort ed b ysubst anti al evidence in the record, w e do no tneed t o ad dress pl ai nt i ff’ s cl ai m thathe s houl d be “l i m i t ed t o s edent aryw or k, [bec aus e then] he gr i ds out . ” Id. ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . Second, as found bythe magi s tr at e j udge, w hi l e “Pl ai nt i ff a ddi t i onal l yas s ert [ed] thatnone of the hypothet i cal s [s ubm i t t ed to th e v o c a tio n a l ex p e rt] in c lu d e d m e n tal lim itatio n s c a u se d b yP lain tiff ’s o rg a n ic b rain im p airm en t, ” A p lt . A p p . , V o l. 1 at 36 , p lai n ti ff fa il ed to ad eq u atelysu p p o rt th is a rg u m e n t in th e p ro c e e d in g s b e fo re th e d is tr ic t c o u rt , i d. ( not i ng thatpl ai nt i ff fa ile d to “ s p e c if

yth e lim ita tio n s th a t s h o u ld h a v e b e e n in c lu d e d ” ). F in a lly , w e w ill n o t co n sid e r th e a rg u m e n ts th a t p lain tiff h a s m a d e in th is appea l i n an att empt t o demonstr at e that“[t ] he A L J ’ s ow n hypothet i cal pr ecl udes w or k forC l ai m ant . ” A pl t . O peni ng B r . at46. Pl ai nt i ff fai l ed t o pr es entthe l at t er a rg u m e n ts to th e d istric t co u rt, an d th e re a re n o c o m p e lli n g re a so n s to e x c u se h is w a iv e r. S e e C ro w v . Sh a la la , 40 F. 3d 323, 324 ( 10th C i r . 1994) ( “A bs ent c o m p e l l i n g r e a s o n s , w e d o n o tc o n s i d e ra r g u m e n t s th a tw e r e n o tp r e s e n t e d [ b y a so c ial s e c u rityc laim a n t] to th e d istric t co u rt.”); B er na v. C hat er , 101 F. 3d 631, 632- 33 ( 10t h C i r . 1996) ( s t at i ng that“w ai verpr i nci pl es devel oped i n other l i t i gat i on cont ext s ar e equa l l yappl i cabl e t o s oci al s ecur i tycas es , ” and that

“ w a iv e r m a yre su lt fro m th e d isa b ili tyc laim a n t’s fa ilu re to . . . p re se rv e iss u e s in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ” ).- 11-

T h e j u d g me n to f

t h e d i s tr i c tc o u r ti s AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt W ade Brorby C i r cui tJ udge