Court Opinion

ID: 605134
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-08-23 10:24:28+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:25.085078
License: Public Domain

991 F.2d 794
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.Trellis E. BOWMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 92-2247.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
March 31, 1993.

Before KENNEDY, MARTIN and MILBURN, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

1
Trellis E. Bowman appeals a district court judgment affirming the Secretary's denial of his application for social security disability benefits.   The case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.   Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed.   Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).   All counsel of record have expressly waived oral argument.

2
Bowman filed an application for social security benefits with the Secretary alleging that he suffered from chest pain, back pain, numbness in the feet, and a heart condition.   Following a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that Bowman was not disabled because he had the residual functional capacity to perform a significant number of jobs in the economy.   The Appeals Council affirmed the ALJ's determination.

3
Bowman then filed a complaint seeking a review of the Secretary's decision.   The district court held that substantial evidence existed to support the Secretary's decision and granted summary judgment for the Secretary.   Bowman has filed a timely appeal.

4
Upon review, we determine that substantial evidence exists to support the Secretary's decision.   Brainard v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 889 F.2d 679, 681 (6th Cir.1989) (per curiam).

5
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment for the reasons set forth in the district court's order entered on August 3, 1992.   Rule 9(b)(3), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.