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

Shirley S. Chater, former Acting Commissioner of So cial 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** This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel.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 4 1998 

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

LONNIE D. GODFREY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

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

Defendant-Appellee. No. 97-7059 (D.C. No. CV-96-002-S) (E.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT **

Before PORFILIO , KELLY , 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-2-

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff appeals from the district court’s affirmance of the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision to deny plaintiff’s application for disability benefits. The district court affirmed and adopted the finding s of the magistrate judge in finding that substantial evidence supported the Com missioner’s decision. On appeal, we also review the entire record to determi ne whether the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and w hether the correct legal standards were applied. See Hawkins v. Chater , 113 F.3d 1162, 1164 (10th Cir. 1997). Concluding that the Commissioner’s decisionis both free of legal error and supported by “such evidence that a reasonable m ind might accept as adequate,” Pacheco v. Sullivan , 931 F.2d 695, 697 (10th Cir. 1991), we affirm the denial of benefits. Plaintiff’s application for disability benefits all eges disability since December 4, 1993, because of back problems, a stoma ch hernia, headaches, and numbness in his left leg. He also presented testim ony complaining of carpal tunnel syndrome in his left hand. The Administrati ve Law Judge (ALJ) determined that plaintiff was unable to return to h is past work of furniture delivery or pizza delivery/fast food worker. The A LJ then found at step five of the sequential analysis, see Williams v. Bowen , 844 F.2d 748, 750-52 (10th Cir.-3-

1988), that plaintiff could perform the full range of sedentary work and established that such jobs exist in significant num bers in the national economy. Plaintiff’s argument centers around his carpal tunn el syndrome and its effects on his manual dexterity. He claims the ALJ did not properly take this into account in finding that plaintiff could perform the full range of sedentary work, and that the ALJ erred in relying on the Medical Vo cational Guidelines (grids) because the manual limitation constitutes a nonexertional impairment. He also cites error in the hypotheticals posed to the vocat ional expert. To the contrary, the ALJ specifically considered pl aintiff’s complaints relating to his left hand and the alleged effect on his residual functional capacity. The ALJ discredited plaintiff’s subjective complaints, citing medical evidence indicating that plaintiff’s left hand problems shou ld not prohibit him from performing sedentary work. The ALJ did find that p laintiff may have limitations relative to his left hand, but that those limitatio ns do not affect plaintiff’s ability to perform sedentary work. Further, the ALJ’s find ing of some limitation is not inconsistent with his finding that plaintiff does n ot have a nonexertional impairment.1 We agree with plaintiff that the ALJ’s finding thatplaintiff was able to

continue to perform his past work despite his hand problems, is not substantial evidence of plaintiff’s residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work. Plaintiff’s former work was not sedentary. The ALJ ’s findings were based on several other factors, however, that are supported by substantial evidence in the record. -4- Our review of the record reveals substantial eviden ce supporting these findings. 1 Because the record contains substantial evidence that plaintiff’s hand problems did not affect his residual functional cap acity to perform sedentary work, the ALJ was correct to rely on the grids in f inding that plaintiff was not disabled. See Glass v. Shalala , 43 F.3d 1392, 1396 (10th Cir. 1994). Finally, because the ALJ did not err in relying on the grids , he was not obligated to elicit vocational expert testimony and, therefore, plainti ff’s assertion of impropriety in hypotheticals posed to the vocational witness is to no avail. See Trimiar v. Sullivan , 966 F.2d 1326, 1332 (10th Cir. 1992) (recognizing that vocational expert not needed when relying on grids). AFFIRMED

.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge