*

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

unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision 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. 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

April 19, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

JOHN C. CAMPOS,

Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner

of Social Security,

Defendant–Appellee.

No. 09-1324

(D.C. No. 1:08-CV-00456-RPM)

(D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before LUCERO, PORFILIO, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

John C. Campos filed a complaint in federal district court challenging a

decision by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the

“Commissioner”) not to reopen a prior application for Social Security disability

insurance and supplemental security income benefits. Campos also claimed that

Appellate Case: 09-1324 Document: 01018404777 Date Filed: 04/19/2010 Page: 1 
-2-

the Commissioner erred in denying a subsequent application for benefits. The

district court upheld the Commissioner’s decision. Exercising jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), we affirm.

I

Campos first filed for benefits in January 2004. He alleged disability due

to various impairments beginning on October 1, 2003. Campos’ application was

denied by an administrative law judge (“ALJ”), who determined that he was not

disabled. The Appeals Council declined review, and Campos did not further

appeal. Instead, he filed a second application alleging the same disability onset

date and requesting that his initial application be reopened. 

Campos’ request to reopen was denied by the ALJ on the grounds that he

failed to “introduce[] any new and material evidence regarding the period prior to

the [first] decision on October 22, 2004.” As a result, the ALJ held that the first

decision was “administratively final” under the doctrine of res judicata. Turning

to Campos’ second application, the ALJ once again concluded that Campos was

not disabled. 

Campos sought review for a second time from the Appeals Council. His

request was denied, and the Council’s decision was ultimately affirmed by the

district court. This appeal followed.

Appellate Case: 09-1324 Document: 01018404777 Date Filed: 04/19/2010 Page: 2 
-3-

II

A

Unless a claimant raises a “colorable constitutional claim,” Blair v. Apfel,

229 F.3d 1294, 1295 (10th Cir. 2000), “[n]either the district court nor this court

has jurisdiction to review the Secretary’s refusal to reopen a claim for disability

benefits or [his] determination [that] such claim is res judicata,” Brown v.

Sullivan, 912 F.2d 1194, 1196 (10th Cir. 1990). Campos has not identified any

colorable constitutional claims. We therefore do not have jurisdiction to review

the ALJ’s decision concerning his first application.

B

As to his second application, Campos argues that the ALJ erred by failing

to afford the opinions of his treating physicians proper weight. “Our review of

the [ALJ’s] decision is limited to whether his findings are supported by

substantial evidence in the record and whether he applied the correct legal

standards.” Andrade v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 985 F.2d 1045, 1047

(10th Cir. 1993) (quotations omitted). Substantial evidence is “such relevant

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

Fowler v. Bowen, 876 F.2d 1451, 1453 (10th Cir. 1989) (quotations omitted).

To determine how much weight a treating source’s opinion should be

afforded, an ALJ must first decide whether the opinion qualifies for “controlling

weight.” Watkins v. Barnhart, 350 F.3d 1297, 1300 (10th Cir. 2003). In making

Appellate Case: 09-1324 Document: 01018404777 Date Filed: 04/19/2010 Page: 3 
1

 These factors include: (1) the duration, nature, and extent of the

treatment relationship; (2) the degree to which the physician’s opinion is

supported by evidence in the record; (3) consistency between the record and the

opinion; and (4) the physician’s specialization or expertise. Drapeau v.

Massanari, 255 F.3d 1211, 1213 (10th Cir. 2001).

2

 Campos also objects to the ALJ’s treatment of other medical opinions,

including: (1) Dr. Christine Jensen-Fox’s opinion that Campos was disabled due

to “alcoholic cirrhosis, ascites, anemia, celiac disease, esophageal varices, and

alcoholic encephalopathy”; (2) Dr. Sue Mitchell’s opinion that Campos had “Nonbleeding grade II esophageal varices”; and (3) Dr. Edward Carter’s opinion that

Campos had moderate to severe osteoarthritis, particularly in his right knee. The

ALJ explicitly took Dr. Jensen-Fox’s opinion into account in making his first

disability assessment and agreed with Dr. Carter that Campos had osteoarthritis in

both knees in his second assessment. As to those opinions which were not

discussed at length by the ALJ, we note that an ALJ’s failure to “explicitly

discuss all the § 404.1527(d) factors for each of the medical opinions before him

does not prevent this court from according his decision meaningful review.” 

Oldham v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2007). 

-4-

this decision, the ALJ must consider whether the opinion is “well-supported by

medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” Social

Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, at *2 (July 2, 1996)

(quotations omitted). If an ALJ finds that a treating physician’s opinion is not

entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must nevertheless afford it some deference

according to the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927.1

 SSR

96-2p at *4. 

Campos’ main argument on appeal is that the ALJ should have given

controlling weight to the opinion of his primary treating physician, Dr. Dean

Branson, Jr.2

 In November 2004, Dr. Branson wrote:

Appellate Case: 09-1324 Document: 01018404777 Date Filed: 04/19/2010 Page: 4 
-5-

Mr. Campos has multiple disabling problems. The main problem

right now is severe osteoarthritis of the knees limiting his ability to

[do] any kind of manual labor. He is in pain pretty much 24 hours [a

day], 7 days a week. We are limited in the fact we cannot give him

nonsteroid arthritis pills because of his esophageal varices. Other

factors: he has a history of cirrhosis and esophageal varices which

are likely life-long and he also has a history of celiac disease which

will be a life-long illness also.

Please note that I expect the patient to be disabled life-long because

of the arthritis and the cirrhosis. 

We reject Campos’ assertion that Dr. Branson’s disability determination

was entitled to controlling weight. Medical source opinions on certain issues

reserved to the Commissioner are not given controlling weight, even when

provided by a treating physician. SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *8 n.8 (July 2,

1996). Campos’ disability status, and the nature and severity of his impairments,

are issues reserved to the Commissioner. §§ 404.1527(e), 416.927(e); see also

SSR 96-5p, 1996 WL 374183, at *5 (July 2, 1996). Accordingly, Dr. Branson’s

determination that Campos was disabled was not entitled to controlling weight.

 For those issues not reserved to the Commissioner, we conclude that the

ALJ properly followed the analysis required by §§ 404.1527(d) and 416.927(d). 

Among other points, the ALJ noted that: (1) Campos reported going on a threemile hike two weeks before Dr. Branson issued his November 2004 report; (2)

there were “no objective medical findings in Dr. Branson’s clinical records to

contradict the findings [of a non-treating physician] that [Campos] has no liver

abnormalities”; and (3) Dr. Branson himself noted in February 2005 that Campos’

Appellate Case: 09-1324 Document: 01018404777 Date Filed: 04/19/2010 Page: 5 
-6-

cirrhosis had improved. These are adequate reasons for not affording Dr.

Branson’s opinion controlling weight. See White v. Barnhart, 287 F.3d 903, 907-

08 (10th Cir. 2002) (opinion of treating physician may be rejected if unsupported

by other evidence of record).

Campos’ remaining arguments are insufficiently developed for us to

consider them on appeal. See Habecker v. Town of Estes Park, 518 F.3d 1217,

1223 n.6 (10th Cir. 2008). 

III

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Carlos F. Lucero

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 09-1324 Document: 01018404777 Date Filed: 04/19/2010 Page: 6