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** This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel.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

### JAN 29 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
RUTH E. SPARKS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. SHIRLEY S. CHATER, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, *

Defendant-Appellee. No. 96-6191 (D.C. No. CIV-95-747-T) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT **

Before PORFILIO, BALDOCK, 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. SeeFed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Th e case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Claimant Ruth E. Sparks appeals from an order of th e district court affirming the final decision of the Secretary of He alth and Human Services denying her application for social security disabil ity insurance benefits. Claimant contends that she has been disabled since October 1 991 due to pain associated with arthritis and fibromyalgia and due to chronic fatigue. The administrative law judge (ALJ) denied benefits at step four of the fiv e-part sequential process for determining disability. See Williams v. Bowen , 844 F.2d 748, 750-52 (10th Cir. 1988)(discussing five-step process). The ALJ determined that claimant had the residual functional capacity to return to her past sedentary work as a receptionist and that she was therefore not disabled. The Appea ls Council affirmed, making the ALJ’s determination the final decision of the S ecretary. We review the Secretary’s decision to determine wh ether it is 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). Substantial evidence is adequate relevant e vidence that a reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion. Richardson v . Perales , 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971).-3-

On appeal, claimant contends that the ALJ failed to adequately develop the record concerning her subjective complaints because the hearing was too brief, he limited her testimony regarding her pain, and he did not question her concerning the effects of her chronic fatigue. An ALJ has a duty to develop the record and learn the claimant’s version of the fact s, but the length of the record is not dispositive of whether the ALJ fulfilled this duty. Thompson v. Sullivan , 987 F.2d 1482, 1492 (10th Cir. 1993). The key inquiry is whether the ALJ developed the record sufficiently to reflect the nature of th e claimant’s impairments, the on-going treatments and medications the claimant is receiving, and the impact of the impairments on the claimant’s daily activities. Id. We have reviewed the record, which includes claimant’s statements regard ing her subjective complaints in addition to her hearing testimony, and conclude that the ALJ adequately developed the record. See also Born v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs. , 923 F.2d 1168, 1172 (6th Cir. 1990) (rejecting contenti on ALJ failed to develop record where, inter alia, claimant failed to indicate what information or evidence would have been produced by further questioning). Claimant also contends that the ALJ improperly eval uated her credibility regarding her subjective complaints. We conclude that the ALJ’s credibility assessment was adequately linked to substantial evi dence in the record and met-4-

the requirements set forth in our cases such as Kep ler v. Chater , 68 F.3d 387, 390-91 (10th Cir. 1995).

The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Bobby R. Baldock Circuit Judge