Helen Marie Lee v. Kenneth S. Apfel , 20 F. App'x 578 ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 01-1622
    ___________
    Helen Marie Lee,                     *
    *
    Appellant,              *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                             * District Court for the
    * Eastern District of Arkansas.
    1
    Larry G. Massanari, Commissioner,    *
    Social Security Administration,      *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellee.               *
    ___________
    Submitted: October 3, 2001
    Filed: October 4, 2001
    ___________
    Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, BOWMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Helen Marie Lee appeals the District Court’s2 order affirming the
    Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance benefits. Having carefully reviewed the
    1
    Larry G. Massanari has been appointed to serve as Acting Commissioner of
    Social Security, and is substituted as appellee pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate
    Procedure 43(c)(2).
    2
    The Honorable John F. Forster, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the
    Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by
    consent of the parties pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (c).
    record, see Hunt v. Massanari, 
    250 F.3d 622
    , 623-24 (8th Cir. 2001) (standard of
    review), we affirm.
    In her January 1995 application, Lee claimed disability since August 1994 from
    back problems. After a March 1998 hearing, the administrative law judge (ALJ) found
    Lee not disabled, because—although she could not perform her past relevant
    work—she could perform jobs identified by a vocational expert to whom a hypothetical
    had been posed.
    Contrary to Lee’s assertions on appeal, we conclude the ALJ (1) developed the
    record fully and fairly, see 
    20 C.F.R. § 404.1517
     (2001); (2) made residual-functional-
    capacity and credibility findings which are supported by substantial evidence in the
    record as a whole, see Ply v. Massanari, 
    251 F.3d 777
    , 779 (8th Cir. 2001) (per
    curiam); Dunahoo v. Apfel, 
    241 F.3d 1033
    , 1038 (8th Cir. 2001); (3) considered Lee’s
    impairments in combination, see Hajek v. Shalala, 
    30 F.3d 89
    , 92 (8th Cir. 1994); (4)
    properly found Lee’s lumbar disc disease was not of listing-level severity, see 20
    C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, § 1.05(C) (2001); and (5) met his burden at step five
    of the sequential evaluation process, see Hunt, 
    250 F.3d at 625
    . We decline to consider
    Lee’s remaining arguments. See PlaNet Prods., Inc. v. Shank, 
    119 F.3d 729
    , 732 (8th
    Cir. 1997); Misner v. Chater, 
    79 F.3d 745
    , 746 (8th Cir. 1996); Primary Care Investors,
    Seven, Inc. v. PHP Healthcare Corp., 
    986 F.2d 1208
    , 1212 (8th Cir. 1993).
    Accordingly, we affirm.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-