F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
SEP 10 1999
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
DOROTHY M. MARTIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 98-7187
(D.C. No. 97-CV-577-S)
KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner (E.D. Okla.)
of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA , KELLY , and BRISCOE , 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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 Dorothy M. Martin appeals the district court’s order affirming the
Commissioner’s decision to deny her application for disability insurance benefits.
She alleges disability since April 15, 1994, due to depression, nervousness,
shortness of breath, and pain in her feet and legs. Following a hearing, an
administrative law judge (ALJ) determined at step four of the five-step analysis,
see Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750-52 (10th Cir. 1988) (discussing five
steps), that claimant could perform her past work as a sewing machine operator.
Therefore, the Commissioner determined that claimant was not disabled within
the meaning of the Social Security Act. On appeal, claimant contends that the
ALJ failed to give appropriate weight to her treating physician’s opinion, failed to
obtain the treating physician’s office notes, and relied on an obvious
typographical error. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
We review the Commissioner’s decision to determine whether it is
supported by substantial evidence and whether correct legal standards were
applied. See Hawkins v. Chater, 113 F.3d 1162, 1164 (10th Cir. 1997).
Substantial evidence is “‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” Soliz v. Chater, 82 F.3d 373, 375
(10th Cir. 1996) (quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)
(further quotation omitted)). We may neither reweigh the evidence nor substitute
-2-
our judgment for that of the Commissioner. See Casias v. Secretary of Health &
Human Servs., 933 F.2d 799, 800 (10th Cir. 1991).
Claimant first contends that the ALJ failed to accord appropriate weight to
her treating psychiatrist, Dr. Chavern. “Generally, the ALJ must give controlling
weight to a treating physician’s well supported opinion about the nature and
severity of a claimant’s impairments.” Adams v. Chater , 93 F.3d 712, 714 (10th
Cir. 1996). Although the treating physician’s opinion should generally be
weighted more heavily than the opinions of consulting physicians, an ALJ is not
required to disregard the other medical evidence. See Reid v. Chater , 71 F.3d
372, 374 (10th Cir. 1995). Here, there is no conflict among the opinions of the
treating psychiatrist, Dr. Chavern, and the two consulting physicians, Drs. Hogan
and Stokes. All three opined that claimant suffered from mild depression that
adversely affected her ability to work, a condition the ALJ took into consideration
when evaluating whether she could return to her past work. We assume that
Dr. Chavern’s office notes would support the medical assessment form he
provided. Therefore, the ALJ did not fail in his duty to clarify or develop the
record.
The only medical evidence that claimant suffered from a disabling mental
impairment was provided by Pat Rich, M.B.S., a Psychological Assistant I. See
R. Vol. II at 116. The ALJ appropriately discounted the opinions proffered by
-3-
Ms. Rich on the ground that she was not a psychologist or a psychiatrist. To the
extent claimant argues that Ms. Rich’s letter purported to summarize the opinion
of Dr. Chavern, the ALJ properly credited the remarks made by Dr. Chavern,
himself, in a later medical assessment. Because the ALJ properly discounted
Ms. Rich’s letter, the ALJ’s reference to a typographical error in the letter did not
undermine his conclusion about claimant’s mental impairment.
We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal, as well as the briefs
submitted by the parties. Applying the standards set out above, we determine that
substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s decision to deny claimant’s
application for disability benefits.
The judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Deanell Reece Tacha
Circuit Judge
-4-
Martin v. Apfel
Combined Opinion