* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the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

### NOV 9 1999 

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

FANNIE L. POINTER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

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

Defendant-Appellee. No. 98-6466 (D.C. No. 97-CV-1189-M) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before TACHA , KELLY , and BRISCOE , 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 appeals from the district court’s order a dopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation upholding the Commissioner’s decision to deny plaintiff’s application for disability insuran ce benefits and supplemental security benefits. We have jurisdiction under 42 U .S.C. § 405(g) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. Plaintiff applied for benefits in August of 1994 al leging disability from November 30, 1993, due to back, leg, and hip pain. The medical evidence reflects generally that although she had reported her compla ints to doctors on a number of occasions, most of the objective medical tests have failed to account for her claimed level of pain. The only limitation placed on her activities by a doctor was a twenty-five pound lifting restriction. The administrative law judge (ALJ) denied benefits at step four of the five-part sequential process used to determine disability. See Williams v. Bowen , 844 F.2d 748, 750-52 (10th Cir. 1988) (discussing f ive-step process). He determined, on consideration of the evidence in the record and testimony introduced at a hearing, that she retained the resi dual functional capacity to return to her former relevant work as a short order cook. Plaintiff claims the ALJ ignored her subjective tes timony regarding her pain because it was not supported by credible medic al evidence. We disagree. The ALJ noted her complaints of pain as part of his consideration of all the-3-

evidence, including extensive medical evidence, andfound her allegations of disabling pain to be unsupported by credible medical evidenc e. Credibility determinations are properly the province of the ALJ , not to be disturbed unless not supported by the evidence. See Casias v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs. , 933 F.2d 799, 801 (10th Cir. 1991). In addition, medical records must be consistent with nonmedical testimony as to the severity of pain. See Talley v. Sullivan , 908 F.2d 585, 587 (10th Cir. 1990); Gaston v. Bowen , 838 F.2d 442, 447 (10th Cir. 1988) (“statements regarding the int ensity and persistence of pain must be reasonably consistent with the medical find ings and signs”). Here the ALJ considered and discussed substantial medical ev idence, which simply does not support plaintiff’s claims of disabling pain. Plaintiff also contends that the ALJ ignored certai n evidence and failed to demonstrate what medical records he considered. We disagree. Although the ALJ is required to consider all the evidence, he is not required to discuss every piece of evidence. See Clifton v. Chater , 79 F.3d 1007, 1009-10 (10th Cir. 1996). The ALJ’s decision reflects adequate consideration of the evidence.-4-

For these and the reasons set forth by the magistrate judge in his report and recommendation filed September 9, 1998, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court upholding the decision of the Commis sioner.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge