* Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c), Kenneth S. Apfel is substituted for

John J. Callahan, former Acting Commissioner of Soc ial Security, as the defendant in this action.

** This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel.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

### FEB 19 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
TERESA Y. GURULE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, *

Defendant-Appellee. No. 97-5112 (D.C. No. 96-CV-157-W) (N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT **

Before BALDOCK , EBEL , and MURPHY , 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-2-

argument. SeeFed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Th e case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff appeals the district court’s decision uph olding the Commissioner’s denial of her application for disability benefits. Plaintiff asserted that she had been disabled, since August 3, 1992, because of hea daches and pain in her left side, lower back and lower extremities. The admini strative law judge (ALJ) determined, at step four of the applicable five-ste p analysis, see20 C.F.R. § 404.1520, that plaintiff remained capable of perf orming her past relevant work in real estate sales and as a waitress. The Appeal s Council denied review, making the ALJ’s determination the Commissioner’s final de cision. This court reviews the Commissioner’s decision to d etermine only that he applied the law correctly and that the record conta ins substantial evidence to support the decision. See Bean v. Chater , 77 F.3d 1210, 1213 (10th Cir. 1995). At step four, the burden remains on plaintiff to es tablish that she cannot perform her past relevant work. See Thompson v. Sullivan , 987 F.2d 1482, 1487 (10th Cir. 1993). On appeal, plaintiff challenges the ALJ’s determination that plaintiff’s complaints of disabling headaches were not credible . Credibility determinations are the province of the ALJ and we will afford thos e determinations considerable deference. See, e.g., James v. Chater , 96 F.3d 1341, 1342 (10th Cir. 1996).1 Our review of the record includes evidence plaintif f presented for the first time to the Appeals Council. See O’Dell v. Shalala , 44 F.3d 855, 858, 859 (10th Cir. 1994). -3- Because the ALJ properly considered plaintiff’s complaints of disabling headaches, seeLuna v. Bowen , 834 F.2d 161, 163-66 (10th Cir. 1987), and because the record 1 contains substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s credibility determination, see Winfrey v. Chater , 92 F.3d 1017, 1020 (10th Cir. 1996), we affirm the denial of disability benefits. The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the Northern District of Oklahoma is, therefore, AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

David M. Ebel Circuit Judge