F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
NOV 6 1998
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
ROBERT G. COLLINS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 98-2037
(D.C. No. CIV-96-1418-MV)
KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner, (D. N.M.)
Social Security Administration,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BALDOCK, EBEL, 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
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
Plaintiff Robert G. Collins appeals from an order of the district court
affirming the decision of the Commissioner to deny Social Security supplemental
security income (SSI) benefits at step five of the five-step sequential process for
determining disability. See Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750-52 (10th Cir.
1988) (discussing five-step process). After reviewing the record as a whole to
determine whether the Commissioner’s findings are supported by substantial
evidence and whether he applied the correct legal standards, see Castellano v.
Secretary of Health & Human Servs. , 26 F.3d 1027, 1028 (10th Cir. 1994), we
affirm.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Collins suffered an injury to his back on July 8, 1986, while working as
a grocery store stocker. He then filed an application for social security insurance
benefits. In connection with that earlier application, Mr. Collins was determined
to be disabled for a closed period through April 9, 1989. After that date, he was
determined to have the residual functional capacity for the full range of sedentary
work in spite of back and leg problems, knee pain, headaches, dizziness, learning
disabilities, solitary nature, and situational depression. See Collins v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Serv. , CIV No. 91-0549 JP/JHG, 1992 WL 551422 (D.N.M.
Dec. 14, 1992), aff’d , No. 92-2286, 1993 WL 335811 (10th Cir. Aug. 26, 1993)
(affirming termination of entitlement to disability insurance benefits).
-2-
Next, Mr. Collins filed an application for SSI benefits, seeking a
determination of disability commencing August 27, 1993 based on pain, learning
disabilities, and depression. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that
Mr. Collins was not disabled. The Appeals Council, however, granted Mr.
Collins’ request for review and remanded the matter with directions to obtain
further evidence and evaluate his mental impairments and subjective complaints
in accordance with the disability regulations.
On remand, the ALJ complied with the directions of the Appeals Council.
After holding a hearing at which Mr. Collins and a vocational expert (VE)
testified, the ALJ issued the denial of benefits prompting this appeal.
Specifically, the ALJ found that: (1) Mr. Collins has a severe impairment or
combination of impairments, including back problems, a pain disorder associated
with psychological factors, a schizoid or schizotypal personality disorder, and
borderline to mentally retarded intellectual functioning; (2) none of these
impairments, solely or in combination, meets or equals the criteria of the relevant
listing of impairments, see 20 C.F.R., Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1; (3) Mr. Collins is
limited to light work allowing for a change in position; (4) Mr. Collins is
illiterate, with a poor ability to deal with social interaction, cope with work
stresses, function independently, or carry out complex job instructions; (5) Mr.
Collins cannot return to any relevant past job; and (6) notwithstanding his
-3-
limitations, Mr. Collins can perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the
national and regional economies.
The Appeals Council denied Mr. Collins’ request for review, so that the
decision of the ALJ became the final decision of the Commissioner. On judicial
review in the district court, the magistrate judge recommended that the ALJ’s
decision be affirmed, and the district court adopted the recommendation.
DISCUSSION
In this court, Mr. Collins contends that the Commissioner’s decision should
be reversed for essentially three reasons: (1) the ALJ failed to consider and make
explicit findings on all relevant medical evidence, all medically determined
impairments, and the combined effect of all impairments; (2) the ALJ