F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUN 4 1999
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
RONALD L. MCKAY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 98-5132
(D.C. No. 96-CV-787-J)
KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner (N.D. Okla.)
of Social Security Administration,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA , BARRETT , 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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
Claimant Ronald L. McKay appeals from the district court’s order affirming
the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. In that decision, the
Commissioner denied claimant’s application for disability insurance benefits
made under Title II of the Social Security Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 423. We exercise
jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm.
On appeal, claimant contends that the administrative law judge (ALJ)
impermissibly ignored some of the medical evidence, “incorrectly appl[ied] the
test for whether or not the claimant’s pain coupled with other factors was
disabling”; and improperly assumed that because claimant had worked with
“massive amounts of pain [] he could continue to do so with a simple
modification . . . to light exertional level.” Appellant’s Br. at 2. Claimant asserts
that these errors resulted in an erroneous conclusion at step five of the sequential
process that claimant maintains the ability to perform a limited range of light
work. See Williams v. Bowen , 844 F.2d 748, 750 (10th Cir. 1988).
Having carefully reviewed the entire medical record, the parties’
arguments, and the relevant law, for substantially the same reasons as set forth in
the district court’s order filed May 19, 1998, we conclude that the
Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence on the whole record
and comports with the relevant legal standards. See Casias v. Secretary of Health
& Human Serv. , 933 F.2d 799, 800-01 (10th Cir. 1991).
-2-
The judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
James E. Barrett
Senior Circuit Judge
-3-