* Effective March 31, 1995, the functions of the Secretary of Health and

Human Services in social security cases were transferred to the Commissioner of

Social Security. P.L. No. 103-296. Pursuant to Fed. 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 defendant 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 because she was the appropriate

party at the time of the underlying decision.

** This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of 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

JAN 30 1997

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

REGINA E. CORK,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

SHIRLEY S. CHATER, Commissioner

of the Social Security Administration,*

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 96-5083

(D.C. No. 94-C-676-M)

(N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT**

Before PORFILIO, BALDOCK, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.
1 The parties agreed to proceed before a United States magistrate judge,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

-2-

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff first filed for disability benefits and supplemental security income

(SSI) benefits in September 1989. Her applications were denied, and plaintiff

took no further action on those applications. She filed new applications for

disability and SSI benefits on December 4, 1990. Plaintiff’s applications were

denied initially and upon reconsideration, and she then requested a hearing before

an administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ denied benefits, but the Appeals

Council remanded the case to the ALJ for further consideration on specific points. 

After a supplemental hearing, the ALJ issued a decision denying benefits, and the

Appeals Council denied review of the second decision. Plaintiff appealed to the

district court,1 and it affirmed the final decision of the Secretary. Plaintiff now

appeals the district court order.

Plaintiff complains that she is disabled as a result of emotional instability. 

Specifically, she claims that she is unable to work because of major depression

and anxiety and personality disorders. The ALJ found at step five, see Williams
-3-

v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750-52 (10th Cir. 1988), that plaintiff is functionally

capable of performing several jobs that exist in significant numbers in the

national economy. He found that plaintiff suffers from severe mental problems,

including depression, anxiety, and a personality disorder, but that she retains the

residual functional capacity to perform the nonexertional requirements of work,

except for performing tasks requiring significant public interaction.

The district court, in a very detailed and well-reasoned order, held that the

record contains substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s decision. “We review

the Secretary’s decision to determine whether it is supported by substantial

evidence and whether the Secretary applied the correct legal standards.” 

Washington v. Shalala, 37 F.3d 1437, 1439 (10th Cir. 1994). We have reviewed

the record, and we affirm for substantially the same reasons set forth in the

district court order of January 26, 1996.

The judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District

of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

John C. Porfilio 

Circuit Judge