* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the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

### OCT 4 1999 

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

CLIFFORD EATON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

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

Defendant-Appellee. No. 98-5168 (D.C. No. 97-CV-340-J) (N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before PORFILIO , BARRETT , 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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Plaintiff Clifford A. Eaton appeals the district co urt’s affirmance of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Securi ty denying his application for supplemental security income (SSI). Because the ad ministrative law judge (ALJ) in this case did not adequately link his credibility findings to relevant evidence in the record, we reverse and remand for further proce edings. Plaintiff filed this second application for SSI ben efits in August 1994, alleging an inability to work due to cardiomyopathy with congestive heart failure, diabetes, obstructive sleep apnea syndrome, and hyp ertension. After a hearing, the ALJ determined that plaintiff could return to h is former employment as a night club manager. The Appeals Council denied rev iew, making the ALJ’s decision the final decision of the Commissioner. T he district court affirmed, and this appeal followed. We review the agency’s decision to determine only w hether the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and the correct legal standards were applied. See Goatcher v. United States Dep’t of Health & Human Servs. , 52 F.3d 288, 289 (10th Cir. 1995). Substantial evi dence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequ ate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales , 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (further quotation omitt ed).-3-

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ improperly evaluated his subjective complaints. At the hearing, plaintiff testified hi s ability to work was limited by shortness of breath, chest pain, leg cramps, and fatigue. His medical records show several hospitalizations for cardiomyopathy wi th congestive heart failure, diabetes, hypertension, pulmonary disease, and isch emia. These records report consistently that plaintiff suffers from chest pain , shortness of breath, and fatigue. The ALJ rejected plaintiff’s complaints without exp lanation, stating only As to the claimant’s allegations of totally di sabling pain, his testimony was evaluated and compared with prior statements and other evidence. It is the conclusion of the [ALJ] that the pain experienced by the claimant is limiting but, when c ompared with the total evidence, not severe enough to preclude all types of work. The issue is not the existence of pain, but whether the claimant’s pain is of sufficient severity as to preclude him from enga ging in all types of work activity. Appellant’s App., Vol. II at 19. No mention was ma de of plaintiff’s shortness of breath or fatigue, and no evidence was cited to sup port the ALJ’s decision to disregard plaintiff’s testimony. Such a conclusoryanalysis does not satisfy the requirements of Kepler v. Chater , 68 F.3d 387, 391 (10th Cir. 1995), which requires the ALJ to make express findings linking h is credibility determination to relevant record evidence when rejecting plaintiff’s subjective complaints. For this reason, the decision must be reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings.-4-

Plaintiff’s second issue is without merit. Citing Winfrey v. Chater , 92 F.3d 1017, 1023-25 (10th Cir. 1996), plaintiff argues th e ALJ erred in failing to determine the stress requirements of his former work as a night club owner. The medical records do not contain any limitations on p laintiff’s ability to handle stress, however, and it would be inappropriate to p resume that his heart disease and hypertension imposed such a limitation in the a bsence of a medical opinion so stating. The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the Northern District of Oklahoma is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED f or further proceedings.

Entered for the Court

Robert H. Henry Circuit Judge