Hayes v. Barnhart, (10th Cir. 2003)

Text

---

UNITEDSTATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

MARGIE A. HAYES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,Commissioner, Social SecurityAdministration,

Defendant - Appellee.No. 02-7057

D.C. No. 01-CV-391-W

(E.D. Oklahoma)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT(*)

Before EBEL, BALDOCK, andLUCERO, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determinedunanimously to grant the parties' request for a decision on the briefs without oralargument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is thereforeordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff Margie A. Hayes appeals from an order of the district courtaffirming the Commissioner's determination that she is not entitled to SocialSecurity disability benefits. We affirm.

We review the Commissioner's decision to determine whether her factualfindings were supported by substantial evidence in light of the entire record andto determine whether she 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 mightaccept as adequate to support a conclusion." Id. (quotations omitted). In thecourse of our review, we may "neither reweigh the evidence nor substitute ourjudgment for that of the agency." Casias v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs.,933 F.2d 799, 800 (10th Cir. 1991).

Ms. Hayes alleged disability as of 1994(1) due to rheumatoid arthritis,degenerative arthritis, muscle spasms, migraine headaches, tendinitis in herelbows, and lower back pain. The administrative law judge (ALJ) determinedthat Ms. Hayes 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 couldperform sedentary work.

On appeal, Ms. Hayes argues that the ALJ should have ordered aconsultative psychological exam, improperly discredited her subjectivecomplaints, and made an incorrect residual functional capacity determination. She contends the ALJ was not entitled to rely on the guidelines and the testimonyof the vocational expert did not constitute substantial evidence to support theALJ's decision that she can perform substantial gainful activity.

We have reviewed the record before this court. While not all of theevidence supports the ALJ's factual determinations, substantial evidence does. See, e.g., O'Dell v. Shalala, 44 F.3d 855, 858 (10th Cir. 1994) ("Evidence isinsubstantial if it is overwhelmingly contradicted by other evidence"). That is allthat is required. Further, the ALJ did not commit any reversible errors at law.

The judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District ofOklahoma is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Bobby R. Baldock

Circuit Judge

FOOTNOTES

Click footnote number to return to corresponding location in the text.

*. This order and judgment is not bindingprecedent, except under thedoctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The courtgenerally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an orderand judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

1. Ms. Hayes' insured status expiredSeptember 30, 1998. Therefore, therelevant time period for determining her disability status is from January 12,1994, the date she claimed she became unable to work, to September 30, 1998. See Adams v. Chater, 93 F.3d 712, 714 (10th Cir. 1996).

---