Andrews v. Chater ( 1997 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
DEC 8 1997
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
WILLIAM W. ANDREWS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 97-7020
(D.C. No. 95-CV-602)
KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner, (E.D. Okla.)
Social Security Administration, *
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT **
Before BALDOCK, BARRETT, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
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
*
Effective September 29, 1997, Kenneth S. Apfel became the Commissioner
for the Social Security Administration. Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c), Mr.
Apfel is substituted for John J. Callahan, former Acting Commissioner of Social
Security, as the defendant in this action.
**
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Claimant William W. Andrews appeals from the district court’s order
affirming the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
to deny his applications for disability and supplemental income benefits.
Claimant applied for benefits on August 25, 1993, alleging disability since
January 15, 1992, due to problems with his back, feet, and liver, and a chemical
imbalance. His requests for benefits were denied administratively and upon
reconsideration. After a hearing held on September 20, 1994, the administrative
law judge (ALJ) issued a decision concluding claimant was not disabled. The
Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ’s decision a final decision of the
Commissioner. Claimant sought review in federal district court. The district
court, adopting the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge,
affirmed the agency’s decision denying benefits. This 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 reached step four, concluding that
claimant could return to his past relevant work. Our jurisdiction over this appeal
arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of the agency’s decision is limited to
determining, on the record as a whole, whether the decision is supported by
-2-
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 evidence 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 step 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 not presented to the district
court and, therefore, are not preserved for judicial review. See Crow v. Shalala,
40 F.3d 323, 324 (10th Cir. 1994) (issues not presented 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 alleged pain. Claimant argues that
this evidence undermines the ALJ’s pain analysis and, accordingly, his decision.
We disagree. The record indicates that claimant sustained various injuries in
1972 following a 50' fall. These injuries and claimant’s resulting condition were
noted in a 1993 report by a consulting physician, Dr. Howard. The medical
-3-
evidence claimant submitted post-hearing consists of 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 on claimant’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 and credited 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 for the Eastern District of
Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
-4-