UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

GARY ALLEN KEMPER, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

No. 14-1293 

(D.C. No. 1:13-CV-00889-RBJ) 

(D. Colo.)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before MORITZ, PORFILIO, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

 

 Gary Allen Kemper, proceeding pro se, appeals from a district court order 

affirming the Commissioner’s decision to deny his application for supplemental 

security income. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 

42 U.S.C. § 405(g), we affirm. 

 

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this 

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

March 3, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 14-1293 Document: 01019392926 Date Filed: 03/03/2015 Page: 1 
- 2 - 

I. Background 

Mr. Kemper alleges disability beginning January 10, 1994, due to back and 

neck problems. Following two remands for further administrative proceedings, an 

administrative law judge (ALJ) held a hearing on January 23, 2013, at which 

Mr. Kemper and a vocational expert testified. The ALJ found that Mr. Kemper 

suffered from the severe impairment of degenerative disc disease of the cervical, 

thoracic, and lumbar spine. The ALJ then determined that Mr. Kemper could not do 

his past work as an iron worker, but he retained the residual functional capacity to 

perform a limited range of light work that exists in significant numbers in the 

national economy. Accordingly, the ALJ determined at step five of the controlling 

five-step sequential analysis, see Wall v. Astrue, 561 F.3d 1048, 1052 (10th Cir. 

2009) (explaining the five-step analysis), that Mr. Kemper was not disabled under the 

Social Security Act. The Appeals Council denied review and the district court 

affirmed. 

II. Legal Standards 

 We review the agency’s decision to ascertain whether it is supported by 

substantial evidence in the record and to evaluate whether the correct legal standards 

were applied. Keyes-Zachary v. Astrue, 695 F.3d 1156, 1161 (10th Cir. 2012). 

“Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla and is such relevant evidence as a 

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Flaherty v. 

Astrue, 515 F.3d 1067, 1070 (10th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). To 

Appellate Case: 14-1293 Document: 01019392926 Date Filed: 03/03/2015 Page: 2 
- 3 - 

determine whether substantial evidence supports the agency’s decision, we examine 

the record as a whole, but we do not reweigh the evidence. Id. We also do not 

“substitute our judgment for that of the agency.” Bowman v. Astrue, 511 F.3d 1270, 

1272 (10th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). In this context, “disability” 

requires both “an inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity” and “a 

physical or mental impairment, which provides reason for the inability.” Barnhart v. 

Walton, 535 U.S. 212, 217 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

III. Discussion 

Mr. Kemper challenges the ALJ’s finding that his claims concerning the 

intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his symptoms were not entirely credible. 

He also argues that the ALJ improperly weighed the medical evidence. And he 

disagrees with Dr. Kamer’s opinion on his abilities and limitations, which we 

construe as arguing that the ALJ accorded too much weight to Dr. Kamer’s opinion. 

It is well-established that “[c]redibility determinations are peculiarly the 

province of the finder of fact, and we will not upset such determinations when 

supported by substantial evidence.” Wilson v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 1136, 1144 (10th Cir. 

2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). An ALJ must consider all the medical 

opinions in the record and discuss the weight each opinion is assigned. Mays v. 

Colvin, 739 F.3d 569, 578 (10th Cir. 2014). 

We have thoroughly reviewed the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable 

law. We, like the district court, conclude that the ALJ properly evaluated 

Appellate Case: 14-1293 Document: 01019392926 Date Filed: 03/03/2015 Page: 3 
- 4 - 

Mr. Kemper’s credibility and weighed the medical evidence.1

 We determine that 

substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision and that the correct legal standards 

were applied. Accordingly, finding no reversible error, we affirm the denial of 

supplemental security benefits for substantially the same reasons as those stated by 

the learned district court in its order dated July 18, 2014. 

 Entered for the Court 

 Bobby R. Baldock 

 Circuit Judge 

 

1

 Mr. Kemper asserts error in the district court’s statement that Dr. Kamer 

reviewed the medical records, even though Dr. Kamer’s report says no medical 

records were submitted. The court’s statement does not demonstrate reversible error. 

The ALJ’s decision giving significant weight to Dr. Kamer’s opinion was not based 

on Dr. Kamer’s review of medical records. We have “independently determine[d] 

[that] the ALJ’s decision is free from legal error and supported by substantial 

evidence.” Fischer-Ross v. Barnhart, 431 F.3d 729, 731 (10th Cir. 2005). 

Appellate Case: 14-1293 Document: 01019392926 Date Filed: 03/03/2015 Page: 4