* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the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

### MAR 6 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

ELWOOD WALKER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

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

Defendant-Appellee. No. 96-6172 (D.C. No. CIV-94-1928-R) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before PORFILIO, BALDOCK, and HENRY, Circuit Judges

.

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.1 Although Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner of Social Security, has been

substituted for Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of Heal th and Human Services, as the defendant in this action, in the text we continue t o refer to the Secretary because she was the appropriate party at the time of the un derlying decision. -2- Plaintiff Elwood Walker appeals from an order of th e district court affirming the Secretary’s 1 determination that he is not entitled to disability benefits. We affirm. “We review the Secretary's decision to determine wh ether her factual findings are supported by substantial evidence in t he record viewed as a whole and whether she applied the correct legal standards . Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might acceptas adequate to support a conclusion." Castellano v. Secretary of Health & H uman Servs. , 26 F.3d 1027, 1028 (10th Cir. 1994)(citations and quotation omitt ed). Mr. Walker claimed disability due to pain and resid uals from a heart attack and resulting bypass surgery and surgeries on his h ands, left hip, left knee, left foot, and back. The administrative law judge (ALJ) determined at step five of the five-step sequential process, see Williams v. Bowen , 844 F.2d 748, 750-52 (10th Cir. 1988), that Mr. Walker could perform sedentarywork. On appeal, Mr. Walker contends that the ALJ’s decis ion is not supported by substantial evidence as (1) he does not have the re sidual functional capacity to work; (2) no residual functional capacity evaluatio n is in the record; and (3) the-3-

vocational expert (VE) testified he could not work if he were having syncopal episodes and did not have good use of both of his h ands. Mr. Walker also argues the ALJ failed to properly develop the record and m any of the impairments the ALJ discredited were verified by the record. Final ly, he asserts the ALJ failed to obtain his current records, and prior counsel faile d to submit the supporting documents necessary to accompany a doctor’s evaluat ion which was submitted to the Appeals Council. Mr. Walker claims disability as of August 5, 1991, when he suffered a heart attack. He has not worked since that date. The re cord shows Mr. Walker recovered well from bypass surgery performed as a r esult of the heart attack. The chest pain he currently experiences was thought to be secondary to his sternotomy scar, R. Vol. II at 215, and the only lightheadedne ss reported was due to a combined use of certain drugs, not a disabling prob lem, id. at 204. Mr. Walker has many pain-producing impairments caused by earli er accidents and surgeries. However, he has worked since those conditions arose . No medical evidence shows that these conditions have worsened such as t o make him unable to work. Mr. Walker submitted a copy of a report prepared by Dr. Halstead to the Appeals Counsel for review. Dr. Halstead concludedthat Mr. Walker could not “maintain regular employment of any kind.” Id. at 19. The Appeals Council determined that little or no weight should be given to that report because Dr.2 We note that counsel has not included a copy of the brief submitted to the

district court for our discernment of issues we mayconsider on appeal. However, as we may address only those issues to which an obj ection was filed to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, we consider thos e issues objected to as the only ones properly preserved for appellate review. See Soliz v. Chater , 82 F.3d 373, 375-76 (10th Cir. 1996)(generally, we will notconsider on appeal, issues not preserved in objections to the magistrate judge's r eport).

-4- Halstead did not indicate whether he had examined o r treated Mr. Walker and did not include any clinical or laboratory findings to support his conclusion. See e.g. , Castellano , 26 F.3d at 1029 (even "[a] treating physician's o pinion may be rejected if his conclusions are not supported by sp ecific findings"). We see no error in the Appeals Counsel’s decision. Mr. Walker‘s remaining issues 2 are new ones not presented to the district court. We do not address new issues on appeal abse nt compelling reasons. See Crow v. Shalala , 40 F.3d 323, 324 (10th Cir. 1994). The fact thatcurrent counsel wishes to advance arguments not proposed by prior c ounsel is not a compelling reason warranting our consideration of those issues . See Geyen v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs. , 850 F.2d 263, 264 (5th Cir. 1988). The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. Entered for the Court John C. Porfilio Circuit Judge