* Effective March 31, 1995, the functions of the Secr etary of Health and

Human Services in social security cases were transf erred to the Commissioner of Social Security. P.L. No. 103-296. Pursuant to Fe d. R. App. P. 43(c), John J. Callahan, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, i s 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 this caption, in the text we continue to refer to the Secretary b ecause she was the appropriate party at the time of the underlying decision.

** This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel.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 3 1997 

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

BOB M. GUNN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. JOHN J. CALLAHAN, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, *

Defendant-Appellee. No. 96-5258 (D.C. No. 95-CV-865-W) (N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT **

Before BRORBY, LOGAN, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.1 The parties consented to disposition by the magistr ate judge. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(c). -2- 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. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff Bob M. Gunn appeals from a decision of th e magistrate judge 1 that affirmed the denial of his claim for social security disability benefits. He challenges, as not supported by substantial evidenc e, the following findings of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): (1) that plaintiff did not have a severe mental impairment during any twelve-month period covered b y this claim--contending the ALJ failed to link his conclusions on the psychiatr ic review technique form with the supporting evidence; and (2) that plaintiff ret ained the residual functional capacity to perform a significant number of jobs other than his past relevant work--because the ALJ did not call a vocational exp ert. We review the Secretary’s decision on the whole record to determi ne only whether it is supported by substantial evidence and the correct legal stand ards were applied. See Goatcher v. United States Dep’t of Health & Human S ervs. 52 F.3d 288, 289 (10th Cir. 1995). We affirm.-3-

Plaintiff, while working as a manager at a Radio Sh ack store, was severely injured on August 10, 1991, when he was shot five t imes during an armed robbery. Plaintiff did not begin working again unt il June 21, 1993. He claims a closed period of disability from August 10, 1991, through June 20, 1993. After a hearing, the ALJ determined at step five of the evaluation process,

see Williams v. Bowen , 844 F.2d 748, 750-52 (10th Cir. 1988), that plaintiff was not disabled. The ALJ’s decision reviewed the medi cal evidence. It pointed out that plaintiff’s treating physician, Dr. James Lockhart, released plaintiff in January 1992, saying plaintiff was “normal” and hadachieved maximum medical improvement. See II R. 19-20, 299. The ALJ also considered the opi nion of Dr. Harold Goldman, the medical expert who reviewed pla intiff’s medical records and testified at the hearing. Dr. Goldman stated that beginning six months after he was shot, plaintiff was not restricted in any activ ities such as standing, walking, sitting, or lifting; that the residual effects from his injuries would not decrease plaintiff’s residual functional capacity; and that “nothing in the record” indicated any continuing impairment of social concentration o r decompensation in work or work-like settings. See id. at 21-22, 97, 280. The ALJ further pointed out th at less than one year after the robbery Dr. Thomas Don ica, a psychiatrist, “assessed a ‘0’ percent partial impairment due to mental and behavioral disorders.” Id. at 21, 312. Dr. Donica gave an opinion that, from a psychiatric point of view,-4-

plaintiff could do any type of work except retail s ales. See id. at 312. On appeal, the magistrate judge affirmed after thoroughly revi ewing the medical evidence. We have carefully reviewed the briefs and the recor d and are satisfied that the district court accurately summarized the facts and correctly applied the law. Although we sympathize with plaintiff’s unfortunate situation and note that there is conflicting evidence in the record, we are unper suaded by plaintiff’s claims of error. We therefore affirm for substantially the r easons stated in the magistrate judge’s order filed September 23, 1996.
AFFIRMED. Entered for the Court James K. Logan Circuit Judge