Pruett v. Apfel ( 1998 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUL 8 1998
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
JERRY D. PRUETT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 98-7017
(D.C. No. CV-96-537-S)
KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner, (E.D. Okla.)
Social Security Administration,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY, BARRETT, and HENRY, 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
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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. 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.
Claimant Jerry D. Pruett appeals from the district court’s order affirming
the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security finding him ineligible for
disability insurance benefits. After “closely examin[ing] the record as a whole to
determine whether the [Commissioner’s] decision is supported by substantial
evidence and adheres to applicable legal standards,” Evans v. Chater, 55 F.3d
530, 531 (10th Cir. 1995), we affirm.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Mr. Pruett’s subjective
complaints of disabling pain, fatigue, weakness, and nausea from neck, shoulder,
chest, back, testicular, and abdominal problems were not fully credible. As a
consequence, the ALJ determined at step four of the five-step sequential
evaluation process, see Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748,750-52 (10th Cir. 1988),
that Mr. Pruett was not disabled as of the date his insured status expired
(September 30, 1987). 1 On appeal, Mr. Pruett argues that the ALJ: (1) applied
improper legal standards to evaluate the credibility of his testimony on his pain
and functional limitations and (2) failed to give sufficient consideration to the
disability rating of the Veteran’s Administration (VA) .
1
Mr. Pruett was found disabled for purposes of a 1991 Supplemental
Security Income application because of back and neck problems arising from a
slip-and-fall accident in 1990 and limitations connected with a mental
impairment.
-2-
In considering the challenge to the ALJ’s assessment of Mr. Pruett’s
subjective complaints, we must bear in mind that “[c]redibility determinations are
peculiarly the province of the finder of fact, and we will not upset such
determinations when supported by substantial evidence.” Diaz v. Secretary of
Health & Human Servs., 898 F.2d 774, 777 (10th Cir.1990). The ALJ
appropriately discussed the medical evidence that led him to believe that Mr.
Pruett’s problems were not as severe as he alleged. See Kepler v. Chater, 68 F.3d
387, 391 (10th Cir.1995). The record provides substantial evidence for the
determination that claimant’s subjective claims were not fully supported by the
evidence.
Mr. Pruett also asserts that the ALJ erred by ignoring the VA determination
that, at the relevant time, he had a sixty per cent disability rating. See Baca v.
Department of Health & Human Servs., 5 F.3d 476, 480 (10th Cir. 1993) (findings
by other agencies are entitled to weight and must be considered, but are not
binding on the Commissioner). We believe this is an inaccurate characterization
of the record. The ALJ inquired about the VA’s disability determination at the
hearing. In his decision, he analyzed the treatment records of VA physicians and
stated that the conclusion of nondisability was made after a consideration of the
entire record.
-3-
The fact that the ALJ drew a different conclusion concerning Mr. Pruett’s
condition does not constitute legal error. See id.; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1504 (another
agency’s determination is based on different rules, and is not binding on the the
Society Security Administration). Although it would have been preferable for the
ALJ to be more explicit in his discussion of the VA disability rating, the lack of
detail is not reversible error under the circumstances presented by this case. See
Clifton v. Chater, 79 F.3d 1007, 1009-10 (10th Cir. 1996) (“The record must
demonstrate that the ALJ considered all of the evidence, but an ALJ is not
required to discuss every piece of evidence.”); Hamilton v. Secretary of Health &
Human Servs., 961 F.2d 1495, 1498-99 (10th Cir. 1992) (“The ALJ stated that he
considered all of the evidence; his reliance on medical findings does not allow us
to assume otherwise.”).
For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Robert H. Henry
Circuit Judge
-4-