* 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. Pursuant to Fe d. R. App. P. 43(c), Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner of Social Security, is substituted for Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services, as the defe ndant in this action. Although we have substituted the Commissioner for the Secretary in the caption, in the text we continue to refer to the Secretary b ecause 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** This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel.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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 8/22/96 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

ANNA M. BANTA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

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

Defendant-Appellee. No. 95-6457 (D.C. No. CIV-94-1754-A) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT **

Before ANDERSON, LOGAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.2--

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) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff Anna M. Banta appeals the district court’ s decision upholding the Secretary’s denial of disability benefits and suppl emental security income. Plaintiff alleged that she was disabled as a resultof back pain radiating into her left hip and leg. Following two hearings, the admi nistrative law judge (ALJ) determined, at step five of the applicable five-ste p sequential analysis, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920; see also Williams v. Bowen , 844 F.2d 748, 750-51 (10th Cir. 1988), that, although plaintiff was unable to perform her past relevant work, she remained capable of performing other work exist ing in the national economy. The Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ’s determination the final decision of the Secretary. We review the Secretary ’s decision to insure that there is substantial evidence to support the Secretary’s factual findings and that the Secretary correctly applied the law. Bean v. Chate r , 77 F.3d 1210, 1213 (10th Cir. 1995). On appeal, plaintiff argues that she was denied eff ective legal representation at the second administrative hearing . There is no constitutional or statutory right to competent counsel in Social Secu rity proceedings, see Smith v.3--

Secretary of Health, Educ. & Welfare , 587 F.2d 857, 860 (7th Cir. 1978) (no constitutional right to counsel); Jeralds v. Richar dson , 445 F.2d 36, 39 (7th Cir. 1971) (although relevant statutes permit representation at administrative disability hearing, citing 42 U.S.C. § 406, Secretary is not c ompelled to provide counsel), or in civil proceedings generally, see MacCuish v. United States , 844 F.2d 733, 735- 36 (10th Cir. 1988). Although ineffective represen tation might require a remand where there has been a showing of “clear prejudice or unfairness,” Jeralds , 445 F.2d at 39; see also Arms v. Gardner , 353 F.2d 197, 199 (6th Cir. 1965) (remanding where claimant did not receive adequate representation), plaintiff has not made such a showing here. Plaintiff argues pri marily that her attorney failed to ask the vocational expert a hypothetical questio n that included the physical restrictions to which she testified; however, the A LJ properly found those complaints of impairment not to be credible. See g enerallyKepler v. Chater , 68 F.3d 387, 390-92 (10th Cir. 1995) (discussing prope r consideration of complaint of disabling pain); Glass v. Shalala , 43 F.3d 1392, 1395 (10th Cir. 1994) (this court will ordinarily defer to ALJ on credibility m atters). Plaintiff also asserts that her attorney should have presented further evi dence on her behalf but fails to specify that evidence. Moreover, although the ALJ has a duty to develop th e record fully, regardless of whether or not the claimant is repres ented by an attorney, Baca v.4--

Department of Health & Human Servs. , 5 F.3d 476, 479-80 (10th Cir. 1993), our review of the record establishes that the ALJ fulfi lled his duty in this case. Because the record contains substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s findings and because we find no legal error, we affirm the d enial of benefits. AFFIRMED. Entered for the Court James K. Logan Circuit Judge