* Effective September 29, 1997, Kenneth S. Apfel became the Commissioner

for the Social Security Administration. Pursuant t o Fed. R. App. P. 43(c), Mr. Apfel is substituted for John J. Callahan, former A cting Commissioner of Social Security, as the defendant in this action.

** This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel.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

### DEC 8 1997 

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

WILLIAM W. ANDREWS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

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

Defendant-Appellee. No. 97-7020 (D.C. No. 95-CV-602) (E.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT **

Before BALDOCK, BARRETT, and MURPHY, 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. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Claimant William W. Andrews appeals from the distri ct court’s order affirming the decision of the Commissioner of the S ocial Security Administration to deny his applications for disability and supplem ental income benefits. Claimant applied for benefits on August 25, 1993, a lleging disability since January 15, 1992, due to problems with his back, fe et, and liver, and a chemical imbalance. His requests for benefits were denied a dministratively and upon reconsideration. After a hearing held on September20, 1994, the administrative law judge (ALJ) issued a decision concluding claimant was not disabled. The Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ’s dec ision a final decision of the Commissioner. Claimant sought review in federal di strict court. The district court, adopting the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge, affirmed the agency’s decision denying benefits. T his appeal followed. Agency regulations establish a five-step sequential analysis to evaluate disability claims. See Williams v. Bowen , 844 F.2d 748, 750-52 (10th Cir. 1988) (describing five steps in detail). Here, the ALJ r eached step four, concluding that claimant could return to his past relevant work. O ur jurisdiction over this appeal arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of the a gency’s decision is limited to determining, on the record as a whole, whether the decision is supported by-3-

substantial evidence and whether the correct legal standards were applied. See Winfrey v. Chater , 92 F.3d 1017, 1019 (10th Cir. 1996). On appeal, claimant contends that post-hearing evid ence he submitted to the Appeals Council demonstrates error in the ALJ’s assessment of his residual functional capacity, analysis of his alleged pain, and determination of his credibility. He challenges the ALJ’s analysis at s tep four of the applicable sequence, asserting that the ALJ failed to make inquiry as to the mental demands of claimant’s past relevant work. See Winfrey , 92 F.3d at 1024. Upon careful review of these arguments and the record on appeal, we conclude that the vast majority of claimant’s arguments on appeal were notpresented to the district court and, therefore, are not preserved for judicia l review. See Crow v. Shalala , 40 F.3d 323, 324 (10th Cir. 1994) (issues not prese nted to district court not considered on appeal absent compelling reasons). The only argument properly preserved for review is claimant’s contention that medical evidence submitted to the agency post- hearing demonstrates a nexus between claimant’s medical condition and his allege d pain. Claimant argues that this evidence undermines the ALJ’s pain analysis an d, accordingly, his decision. We disagree. The record indicates that claimant su stained various injuries in 1972 following a 50' fall. These injuries and clai mant’s resulting condition were noted in a 1993 report by a consulting physician, D r. Howard. The medical-4-

evidence claimant submitted post-hearing consists o f notes and test results from what claimant’s counsel described as a “full workup ” regarding claimant’s spine, ankle, foot, and chest. Appellant’s App., Vol. II at 123. These records do not contradict Dr. Howard’s observations, his report onclaimant’s condition or his conclusion that the injuries resulted in “low back pain and foot pain . . . which may prohibit [claimant] from doing heavy, strenuous type labor only.” Id. at 110. The ALJ properly considered Dr. Howard’s report andcredited his conclusions; we cannot reweigh the evidence. See Hamilton v. Secretary of Health & Human
Servs. , 961 F.2d 1495, 1500 (10th Cir. 1992). The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the Eastern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Bobby R. Baldock Circuit Judge