* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the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

### SEP 10 1999 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
DOROTHY M. MARTIN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant-Appellee. No. 98-7187 (D.C. No. 97-CV-577-S) (E.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before TACHA , KELLY , and BRISCOE , 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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Claimant Dorothy M. Martin appeals the district court’s order affirm ing the Commissioner’s decision to deny her application fordisability insurance benefits. She alleges disability since April 15, 1994, due to depression, nervousness, shortness of breath, and pain in her feet and legs. Following a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) determined at step f our of the five-step analysis,

see Williams v. Bowen , 844 F.2d 748, 750-52 (10th Cir. 1988) (discussingfive steps), that claimant could perform her past work a s a sewing machine operator. Therefore, the Commissioner determined that claimant was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. On appeal, claimant contends that the ALJ failed to give appropriate weight to her treati ng physician’s opinion, failed to obtain the treating physician’s office notes, and r elied on an obvious typographical error. We exercise jurisdiction unde r 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. We review the Commissioner’s decision to determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence and whether corre ct legal standards were applied. See Hawkins v. Chater , 113 F.3d 1162, 1164 (10th Cir. 1997). Substantial evidence is “‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” Soli z v. Chater , 82 F.3d 373, 375 (10th Cir. 1996) (quoting Richardson v. Perales , 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (further quotation omitted)). We may neither rewei gh the evidence nor substitute-3-

our judgment for that of the Commissioner. See Casias v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs. , 933 F.2d 799, 800 (10th Cir. 1991). Claimant first contends that the ALJ failed to acco rd appropriate weight to her treating psychiatrist, Dr. Chavern. “Generally , the ALJ must give controlling weight to a treating physician’s well supported opi nion about the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments.” Adams v. Chater , 93 F.3d 712, 714 (10th Cir. 1996). Although the treating physician’s opin ion should generally be weighted more heavily than the opinions of consulti ng physicians, an ALJ is not required to disregard the other medical evidence. See Reid v. Chater , 71 F.3d 372, 374 (10th Cir. 1995). Here, there is no confl ict among the opinions of the treating psychiatrist, Dr. Chavern, and the two con sulting physicians, Drs. Hogan and Stokes. All three opined that claimant suffere d from mild depression that adversely affected her ability to work, a conditionthe ALJ took into consideration when evaluating whether she could return to her pas t work. We assume that Dr. Chavern’s office notes would support the medica l assessment form he provided. Therefore, the ALJ did not fail in his d uty to clarify or develop the record. The only medical evidence that claimant suffered fr om a disabling mental impairment was provided by Pat Rich, M.B.S., a Psychological Assistant I. See R. Vol. II at 116. The ALJ appropriately discounte d the opinions proffered by-4-

Ms. Rich on the ground that she was not a psycholog ist or a psychiatrist. To the extent claimant argues that Ms. Rich’s letter purpo rted to summarize the opinion of Dr. Chavern, the ALJ properly credited the remarks made by Dr. Chavern, himself, in a later medical assessment. Because th e ALJ properly discounted Ms. Rich’s letter, the ALJ’s reference to a typographical error in the letter did not undermine his conclusion about claimant’s mental impairment. We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal, as well as the briefs submitted by the parties. Applying the standards s et out above, we determine that substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s de cision to deny claimant’s application for disability benefits. The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the Eastern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Deanell Reece Tacha Circuit Judge