Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 12 views

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding an appeal of a Social Security disability benefits claim. The Court affirmed the district court's ruling that the claimant, Margie Hayes, was not entitled to disability benefits. The Court found that while not all evidence supported the ALJ's decision, substantial evidence did, which is the legal standard. The Court also found that the ALJ did not commit any reversible legal errors. Therefore, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    12 views3 pages
    This document is an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding an appeal of a Social Security disability benefits claim. The Court affirmed the district court's ruling that the claimant, Margie Hayes, was not entitled to disability benefits. The Court found that while not all evidence supported the ALJ's decision, substantial evidence did, which is the legal standard. The Court also found that the ALJ did not commit any reversible legal errors. Therefore, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2003-01-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-7057

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding an appeal of a Social Security disability benefits claim. The Court affirmed the district court's ruling that the claimant, Margie Hayes, was not entitled to disability benefits. The Court found that while not all evidence supported the ALJ's decision, substantial evidence did, which is the legal standard. The Court also found that the ALJ did not commit any reversible legal errors. Therefore, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    12 views3 pages

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding an appeal of a Social Security disability benefits claim. The Court affirmed the district court's ruling that the claimant, Margie Hayes, was not entitled to disability benefits. The Court found that while not all evidence supported the ALJ's decision, substantial evidence did, which is the legal standard. The Court also found that the ALJ did not commit any reversible legal errors. Therefore, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 3

    F I L E D

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

    United States Court of Appeals


    Tenth Circuit

    JAN 29 2003

    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk

    MARGIE A. HAYES,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    JO ANNE B. BARNHART,
    Commissioner, Social Security
    Administration,

    No. 02-7057
    D.C. No. 01-CV-391-W
    (E.D. Oklahoma)

    Defendant - Appellee.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT

    Before EBEL , BALDOCK , and LUCERO , 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.

    Plaintiff Margie A. Hayes appeals from an order of the district court


    affirming the Commissioners determination that she is not entitled to Social
    Security disability benefits. We affirm.
    We review the Commissioners decision to determine whether her factual
    findings were supported by substantial evidence in light of the entire record and
    to 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 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. Hayes alleged disability as of 1994

    due to rheumatoid arthritis,

    degenerative arthritis, muscle spasms, migraine headaches, tendinitis in her


    elbows, and lower back pain. The administrative law judge (ALJ) determined
    that Ms. Hayes was not disabled at step five of the five-step sequential process,

    Ms. Hayes insured status expired September 30, 1998. Therefore, the
    relevant 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).

    -2-

    see Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750-52 (10th Cir. 1988), as she could
    perform sedentary work.
    On appeal, Ms. Hayes argues that the ALJ should have ordered a

    consultative psychological exam, improperly discredited her subjective


    complaints, and made an incorrect residual functional capacity determination.
    She contends the ALJ was not entitled to rely on the guidelines and the testimony
    of the vocational expert did not constitute substantial evidence to support the
    ALJs decision that she can perform substantial gainful activity.
    We have reviewed the record before this court. While not all of the
    evidence supports the ALJs factual determinations, substantial evidence does.
    See, e.g. , ODell v. Shalala , 44 F.3d 855, 858 (10th Cir. 1994)

    (Evidence is

    insubstantial if it is overwhelmingly contradicted by other evidence). That is all


    that 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 of
    Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.

    Entered for the Court

    Bobby R. Baldock
    Circuit Judge

    -3-

    You might also like