Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 25 views

    Waterdown v. Apfel, 10th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding an appeal from a denial of Supplemental Security Income Benefits. The order affirms the district court's decision to uphold the denial of benefits. Specifically, it finds that the administrative law judge's (ALJ) assessment of the claimant's residual functional capacity and determination that the claimant's testimony was not credible were supported by substantial evidence. It also finds that the ALJ's determination at step five that the claimant could perform other work was based on a proper hypothetical question to the vocational expert.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Waterdown v. Apfel, 10th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    25 views4 pages
    This document is an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding an appeal from a denial of Supplemental Security Income Benefits. The order affirms the district court's decision to uphold the denial of benefits. Specifically, it finds that the administrative law judge's (ALJ) assessment of the claimant's residual functional capacity and determination that the claimant's testimony was not credible were supported by substantial evidence. It also finds that the ALJ's determination at step five that the claimant could perform other work was based on a proper hypothetical question to the vocational expert.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-07-31 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-5214

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding an appeal from a denial of Supplemental Security Income Benefits. The order affirms the district court's decision to uphold the denial of benefits. Specifically, it finds that the administrative law judge's (ALJ) assessment of the claimant's residual functional capacity and determination that the claimant's testimony was not credible were supported by substantial evidence. It also finds that the ALJ's determination at step five that the claimant could perform other work was based on a proper hypothetical question to the vocational expert.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    25 views4 pages

    Waterdown v. Apfel, 10th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding an appeal from a denial of Supplemental Security Income Benefits. The order affirms the district court's decision to uphold the denial of benefits. Specifically, it finds that the administrative law judge's (ALJ) assessment of the claimant's residual functional capacity and determination that the claimant's testimony was not credible were supported by substantial evidence. It also finds that the ALJ's determination at step five that the claimant could perform other work was based on a proper hypothetical question to the vocational expert.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    F I L E D

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

    United States Court of Appeals


    Tenth Circuit

    JUL 31 1998

    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk

    JOHN L. WATERDOWN,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner,
    Social Security Administration,

    No. 97-5214
    (D.C. No. 96-CV-396-W)
    (N.D. Okla.)

    Defendant-Appellee.

    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

    Before TACHA and McKAY, Circuit Judges, and BROWN, ** Senior District
    Judge.

    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

    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.

    Honorable Wesley E. Brown, Senior District Judge, United States District


    Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation.

    **

    argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is
    therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
    Claimant John L. Waterdown appeals from the district courts order
    affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying his
    application for Supplemental Security Income Benefits under Title XVI of the
    Social Security Act. Claimant applied for benefits in 1994, alleging disability as
    of May 4, 1994, as a result of nervousness, shortness of breath, arthritis, and
    dizziness. Claimants request for benefits was denied administratively and upon
    reconsideration.
    A hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ) resulted in a decision
    that claimant was not disabled. Agency regulations establish a five-part test to
    determine disability under the Social Security Act. See 20 C.F.R. 416.920;
    Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750-52 (10th Cir. 1988) (discussing five steps
    in detail). In this case, the ALJ reached step five of the analysis, determining
    that, while claimant could not return to his past work, he was capable of work
    available in the national economy. The Appeals Council denied review, and
    claimant filed suit in federal district court. The magistrate judges order affirmed
    the agencys decision to deny claimant benefits. 1
    The parties consented to proceed before the magistrate judge pursuant to
    28 U.S.C. 636(c)(1). Accordingly, our jurisdiction over this appeals arises
    (continued...)

    -2-

    Our review of the agencys decision is limited to determining whether the


    decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole and whether
    the correct legal standards were applied. See Castellano v. Secretary of Health &
    Human Servs., 26 F.3d 1027, 1028 (10th Cir. 1994). On appeal, claimant
    contends that 1) the ALJs residual functional capacity assessment reflects errors
    in his review of the medical records, lacks evidentiary support, and fails to
    properly identify evidence in support of his determination that claimants
    testimony was not credible, and 2) the ALJs step five determination that claimant
    could perform work in the national economy is based on vocational testimony
    elicited by an incomplete hypothetical question.
    After consideration of the arguments presented, and after careful review of
    the record on appeal, we conclude that the district court correctly decided this
    case. Therefore, for substantially the same reasons set forth in the magistrate

    (...continued)
    under 636(c)(3) and 28 U.S.C. 1291.
    1

    -3-

    judges order dated September 17, 1997, the judgment of the United States
    District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.

    Entered for the Court

    Wesley E. Brown
    Senior District Judge

    -4-

    You might also like