UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Filed 12/20/96
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
MARCIAL SALCIDO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 96-7052
(D.C. No. CIV-95-268-S)
SHIRLEY S. CHATER, Commissioner (E.D. Okla.)
of Social Security Administration, *
.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT **
Before PORFILIO, ALARCON, *** and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
*
Effective March 31, 1995, the functions of the Secretary of Health and
Human Services in social security cases were transferred to the Commissioner of
Social Security. P.L. No. 103-296. In the text we continue to refer to the
Secretary because she was the appropriate party at the time of the underlying
administrative decision.
**
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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 Arthur L. Alarcon, Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.
Marcial Salcido appeals from an order of the district court affirming the
Secretary’s decision denying his application for social security disability benefits
and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). 1 Mr. Salcido filed for disability
benefits and SSI on September 28, 1993. He alleged disability due to a back
injury resulting from a fall at work; he later also alleged hip pain and memory
problems. Mr. Salcido’s requests were denied initially and on reconsideration.
Following a de novo hearing on June 8, 1994, an administrative law judge (ALJ)
determined that he was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security
Act. The district court affirmed the Secretary’s decision, and Mr. Salcido
appealed to this court.
We review the Secretary’s decision to determine whether the factual
findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record viewed as a whole
and whether the correct legal standards were applied. Andrade v. Secretary of
Health & Human Servs., 985 F.2d 1045, 1047 (10th Cir. 1993). Substantial
evidence is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion." Fowler v. Bowen, 876 F.2d 1451, 1453 (10th
Cir. 1989) (quotation omitted).
1
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) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
2
The Secretary has established a five-step evaluation process for
determining whether a claimant is disabled within the meaning of the Social
Security Act. See Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750-52 (10th Cir. 1988)
(discussing five-step disability test). When the analysis reaches step five, the
Secretary bears the burden of showing that a claimant retains the capacity to
perform other work and that such work exists in the national economy. Id. at 751.
The ALJ determined that Mr. Salcido retained the residual functional
capacity (RFC) to perform a full range of sedentary and light work. He denied
benefits at step four, reasoning that Mr. Salcido could return to his past relevant
work as a chicken processor. As an alternative, the ALJ denied benefits at step
five, finding that the Secretary had met its burden of showing that there existed
occupations in the national economy in sufficient numbers that Mr. Salcido could
perform, given his impairment, age, education, work experience, and RFC.
Mr. Salcido raises a single issue. He contends the ALJ’s decision at step
four is unsupported by substantial evidence due to his failure to develop the
record. Mr. Salcido, however, fails to challenge the ALJ’s determination at step
3
five, which standing alone presents a sufficient basis for the Secretary’s denial of
benefits. See Murrell v. Shalala, 43 F.3d 1388, 1390 (10th Cir. 1994). We need
not address any other issues; Murrell is dispositive.
AFFIRMED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
4