* 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. Proc. 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** This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of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. 

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

that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.

(continued...)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 6/26/96

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

BEVERLY FRONKO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

SHIRLEY S. CHATER, Commissioner,

Social Security Administration,*

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 95-5199

(D.C. No. 93-C-1047-W)

(N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT**

Before ANDERSON, LOGAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.***
***(...continued)

App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral

argument.

2

Claimant Beverly Fronko requested Social Security Disability benefits from the

Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary). She alleged that she was unable to

work because of degenerative arthritis. The case was referred to an administrative law judge

(ALJ), who found claimant was not “disabled.” Claimant filed suit in federal court, and the

district court affirmed the Secretary’s decision. On appeal, claimant contends that the

Secretary’s decision was not based on substantial evidence.

We review the agency’s decision to determine whether the factual findings are

supported by substantial evidence and whether the correct legal standards were applied.

Castellano v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 26 F.3d 1027, 1028 (10th Cir. 1994). We

may neither reweigh the evidence nor substitute our judgment for that of the agency. Casias

v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 933 F.2d 799, 800 (10th Cir. 1991).

In examining a claimant’s allegation of disability, the Secretary evaluates the

individual’s condition using a five-step process. Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750-52

(10th Cir. 1988). In this case the ALJ determined the claimant failed to establish that she is

“disabled” and that she could do past relevant work as that work is performed in the national

economy. 
3

The ALJ found the medical evidence showed that claimant had the residual functional

capacity to perform work-related activities as that work is performed in the national economy.

Claimant presented a medical history of generalized complaints of joint pain. She provided

records from two treating physicians and consultative evaluations from two other doctors. The

ALJ found that the medical evidence did not support claimant’s allegations of totally disabling

pain. In short, the ALJ did not find claimant credible to the extent that her allegations of pain

would preclude past relevant work.

The ALJ acknowledged that claimant could not do work involving the ability to lift

more than twenty pounds at a time, lift/carry more than ten pounds frequently, stand/walk more

than six hours in an eight-hour day, and to do more than occasional stooping. There is

substantial evidence, however, that claimant can do a job requiring sitting, reaching, and

handling. While the ALJ found that claimant’s past relevant work as a cashier (which required

lifting fifty pounds) was precluded by the above limitations, other work as a cashier as

performed in the national economy was not precluded by them. 
4

After reviewing the record, we conclude that the ALJ’s decision was supported by

substantial evidence, and he applied the correct legal standards. The judgment of the United

States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge