F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JAN 27 1999
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
DAMON N. DUNBAR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 98-6132
(D.C. No. 96-CV-1380)
KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner, (W.D. Okla.)
Social Security Administration, *
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT **
Before BRORBY , BRISCOE , and LUCERO , 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
*
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2), Kenneth S. Apfel is substituted for
John J. Callahan, former Acting Commissioner of Social Security, as the
defendant in this action.
**
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Claimant Damon N. Dunbar appeals from the district court’s order
affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying his
applications for disability and supplemental security income benefits. Agency
regulations establish a five-step sequential analysis to evaluate disability claims.
See Williams v. Bowen , 844 F.2d 748, 750-52 (10th Cir. 1988) (describing five
steps in detail). Here, the administrative law judge (ALJ) reached step five of the
analysis, determining that, although claimant could not return to his past relevant
work, he could perform other work available in the national economy.
Claimant filed suit in district court and the court, adopting the magistrate
judge’s findings and recommendation, affirmed the agency’s denial of benefits.
Our jurisdiction over this appeal arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of
the agency’s 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 the ALJ failed to 1) properly consider
evidence of claimant’s alleged mental impairments, 2) develop the record with
regard to those alleged mental impairments, and 3) properly include the alleged
-2-
mental impairments in the hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert
at claimant’s disability hearing.
After careful review of the record on appeal and consideration of
claimant’s arguments in light of the applicable legal standards, we conclude that
substantial evidence supports the agency’s decision and that the ALJ applied the
correct legal standards. Further, the district court correctly decided this case.
Therefore, for substantially the same reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s
findings and recommendation, dated November 4, 1997, the judgment of the
district court is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Circuit Judge
-3-