UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
LOUIS J. ARNAU, II,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 99-6357
KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner,
Social Security Administration,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER
Filed August 11, 2000
Before TACHA , EBEL , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.
This matter is before the court on petition of appellant Louis J. Arnau for
rehearing of this court’s order and judgment filed June 20, 2000. Appellant
correctly contends the order and judgment erroneously states that he did not file
his district court brief on appeal. Accordingly, the hearing panel has revised the
order and judgment to correct this inaccuracy.
The members of the hearing panel have considered appellant’s arguments
on the merits of this court’s disposition of his appeal, and conclude that the
original disposition was correct because appellant did assert a legal issue on
appeal not presented to the district court.
Appellant argued before the district court that the ALJ erred by not
including his sleep apnea in her evaluation of whether he met the requirements of
Listing § 12.02 with respect to his attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD), and asserted that his ADHD would have been considered severe enough
to meet this ADHD listing if the ALJ had factored in the cognitive problems
caused by his sleep apnea. He did not argue before the district court that ALJ
failed to consider whether the combined effects of the two asserted impairments,
ADHD and sleep apnea, create a medically severe impairment in combination.
Nor did he cite to the regulation or decisions which obligate an ALJ to consider
impairments in combination. See Hargis v. Sullivan , 945 F.2d 1482, 1491 (10th
Cir. 1991) (holding that an ALJ “must consider the combined effects of
impairments that may not be severe individually, but which in combination may
constitute a severe medical disability”); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1523.
On appeal, appellant added to the argument raised below by also claiming
that the ALJ failed to consider how his asserted lack of “cognitive vigilance”
caused by his sleep apnea “worked in combination with [his] ADHD to make both
conditions more disabling together than they would ordinarily be separately.”
Appellant’s Br. at 22. This “in combination with” argument is new and legally
-2-
distinct from his argument before the district court because resolving the legal
issue of whether appellant met the ADHD listing, as argued below, does not
resolve the separate issue of whether his impairments, while not severe
individually, were disabling when considered in combination, as argued on
appeal.
Therefore, the petition for rehearing is GRANTED in part to modify
footnote one of the order and judgment, and is DENIED in all other respects. A
copy of the corrected order and judgment is attached.
Entered for the Court
PATRICK FISHER, Clerk of Court
By:
Keith Nelson
Deputy Clerk
-3-
F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
AUG 11 2000
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
LOUIS J. ARNAU, II,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 99-6357
(D.C. No. 98-CV-412-L)
KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner, (W.D. Okla.)
Social Security Administration,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA , EBEL , 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.
Plaintiff Louis J. Arnau, II, appeals the district court’s judgment affirming
the Commissioner’s decision to deny his application for disability benefits.
*
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.
He alleges disability since February 28, 1994, due to sleep apnea, attention
deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and heart palpitations. Following
a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ), the ALJ determined that
although plaintiff could not perform his past work, he retained the residual
functional capacity (RFC) to perform a significant number of alternate jobs
available in the national economy, and denied benefits at step five of the five-step
evaluation process. See Williams v. Bowen , 844 F.2d 748, 750-52 (10th Cir.
1988) (discussing five steps). The Appeals Council denied review, making the
ALJ’s decision the final decision of the Commissioner. Based upon the findings
and recommendations of the magistrate judge, the district court affirmed.
On appeal, plaintiff contends the ALJ failed (1) to evaluate the effects
of his sleep apnea under the criteria of Listing 12.02, see 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404,
Subpt. P, App. 1, § 12.02, which he asserts is required by Listing 3.00(H), see id .
at § 3.00(H) 1; and (2) to accord proper weight to the opinion of his treating
physician, who opined that plaintiff was disabled because he could not be
supervised closely enough to make him a profitable employee.
1
Plaintiff also contends the ALJ erred in failing to properly consider sleep
apnea in combination with his adult ADHD when determining that plaintiff did
not meet the requirements of a listed impairment. The Commissioner asserts this
issue was not raised before the district court. We agree. See Berna v. Chater ,
101 F.3d 631, 632 (10th Cir. 1996) (appellate review “is limited to the issues the
claimant properly preserves in the district court and adequately presents on
appeal”).
-2-
We review the Commissioner’s decision on the whole record to determine
only whether the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and the
correct legal standards were applied. See Qualls v. Apfel , 206 F.3d 1368, 1371
(10th Cir. 2000). We may not reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment
for that of the Commissioner. See id . We have carefully reviewed the record on
appeal, as well as the briefs submitted by the parties. Applying the standards set
out above, we AFFIRM the denial of benefits for substantially the reasons stated
in the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations dated November 18,
1998, and the district court’s order dated July 20, 1999.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Circuit Judge
-3-