F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
AUG 18 1999
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
IVA L. STALVEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 98-5208
(D.C. No. 97-CV-721-M)
KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner (N.D. Okla.)
of Social Security Administration,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BALDOCK , BARRETT , and McKAY, 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(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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
Plaintiff Iva L. Stalvey appeals from an order of the district court affirming
the Commissioner’s determination that she is not entitled to Social Security
benefits under either Title II or Title XVI. We affirm.
We review the Commissioner’s decision to determine whether his factual
findings were supported by substantial evidence in light of the entire record and
to determine whether he applied the correct legal standards. See Castellano v.
Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 26 F.3d 1027, 1028 (10th Cir. 1994).
“Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (quotations omitted). In the course of
our review, we may “neither reweigh the evidence nor substitute our judgment for
that of the agency.” Casias v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 933 F.2d 799,
800 (10th Cir. 1991).
Ms. Stalvey alleged disability as of April 16, 1995, due to diabetes, a foot
injury, acute anxiety, and depression. The administrative law judge (ALJ)
determined that Ms. Stalvey was not disabled at step five of the five-step
sequential process, see Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750-52 (10th Cir.
1988), as she could perform light work.
On appeal, Ms. Stalvey contends substantial evidence does not support the
ALJ’s determination that she can perform light work, the ALJ applied the wrong
legal standard in evaluating her mental limitations, and the testimony of the
-2-
vocational expert (VE) is not substantial evidence as the hypothetical did not
reflect her true limitations and was inconsistent with the Dictionary of
Occupational Titles (DOT).
Contrary to Ms. Stalvey’s contention, substantial evidence does support the
ALJ’s determination that she can perform light work. The record shows that
Ms. Stalvey has had many problems with her diabetes. However, the record does
not show any period of the prescribed length, see , 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1509,
416.909, during which Ms. Stalvey was unable to work due to her diabetes.
Additionally, the one time when Ms. Stalvey decompensated, possibly due to her
diabetes, was prior to the time she claims disability.
The record fails to show that her foot injury is disabling. Ms. Stalvey hurt
her foot in karate class in March 1995. The injury has improved since then. She
does have mild degenerative changes in her foot with a calcaneal spur, but there
is no indication that this is disabling.
Ms. Stalvey argues the ALJ should have ordered a consultative
examination. An ALJ has “broad latitude” in determining whether to order a
consultative examination. Diaz v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 898 F.2d
774, 778 (10th Cir. 1990). The ALJ should order one if the claimant has shown
“a reasonable possibility that a severe impairment exists” and the examination
would be “necessary or helpful to resolve the issue of impairment.” Hawkins v.
-3-
Chater , 113 F.3d 1162, 1167 (10th Cir.1997). No reason for an examination is
present here.
Ms. Stalvey also contends the ALJ applied the wrong legal standard in
evaluating her mental limitations. The ALJ must evaluate a mental impairment in
accordance with 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520a, 416.920a by completing a Psychiatric
Review Technique Form (PRT). The ALJ completed the PRT and determined that
Ms. Stalvey was depressed and had slight restrictions in her daily activities and in
maintaining social functioning, she seldom had deficiencies of concentration and
had no episodes of deterioration or decompensation in work or work-like settings.
These findings are compatible with the findings of two psychologists in 1995 and
Dr. Inbody’s 1995 consultative examination.
Ms. Stalvey contends the ALJ failed to consider Dr. Inbody’s determination
that she had a Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) rating of 55. The GAF
score represents Axis V of the Multiaxial Assessment system. See American
Psychiatric Assoc., Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 25-30,
(4th ed. 1994). The axial system of evaluation enables the clinician to
comprehensively and systematically evaluate a client. See id. at 25. The GAF
rates the client’s “psychological, social, and occupational functioning.” Id. at 30.
The GAF is not an absolute determiner of ability to work. The ALJ properly
-4-
considered that score along with the rest of the medical evidence in reaching his
determination that Ms. Stalvey could perform light work.
Ms. Stalvey contends the testimony of the VE is not substantial evidence as
the hypothetical posed to her did not reflect her true limitations. The hypothetical
reflected the limitations the ALJ accepted. See Evans v. Chater , 55 F.3d 530, 532
(10th Cir. 1995) (ALJ’s hypothetical questions to vocational expert “must include
all (and only) those impairments borne out by the evidentiary record”).
Ms. Stalvey argues that the exertional levels identified by the VE for the
jobs she concluded Ms. Stalvey could perform do not agree with those assigned
by the DOT. Although there may be some unexplained differences for some of
the jobs the VE identified, the exertional level assigned by both the VE and the
DOT to the position of food and beverage cashier is light, the level accepted by
the ALJ as one Ms. Stalvey can perform. The VE testified that 1,813 such jobs
are available in Oklahoma, with 139,008 available nationally . The ALJ properly
determined that a sufficient number of those jobs existed in the local and national
economy. See, e.g., Trimiar v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1326, 1330-32 (10th Cir.
1992). We find no error in the ALJ’s determination that Ms. Stalvey could
perform work which is available in both Oklahoma and the national economy in
substantial numbers.
-5-
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
-6-