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** This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel.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

## 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 State s magistrate judge,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). -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 first filed for disability benefits and s upplemental 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. P laintiff’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 co nsideration on specific points. After a supplemental hearing, the ALJ issued a deci sion denying benefits, and the Appeals Council denied review of the second decisio n. 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 resul t of emotional instability. Specifically, she claims that she is unable to workbecause of major depression and anxiety and personality disorders. The ALJ fou nd at step five, see Williams-3-

v. Bowen , 844 F.2d 748, 750-52 (10th Cir. 1988), that plain tiff is functionally capable of performing several jobs that exist in si gnificant numbers in the national economy. He found that plaintiff suffers from severe mental problems, including depression, anxiety, and a personality di sorder, but that she retains the residual functional capacity to perform the nonexertional requirements of work, except for performing tasks requiring significant p ublic interaction. The district court, in a very detailed and well-rea soned 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 corr ect legal standards.” Washington v. Shalala , 37 F.3d 1437, 1439 (10th Cir. 1994). We have rev iewed the record, and we affirm for substantially the sam e reasons set forth in the district court order of January 26, 1996. The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the Northern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

John C. Porfilio Circuit Judge