Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PATSY G. REDFEARN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SHIRLEY S. CHATER, Commissioner
of Social Security Administration, *
No. 96-5003
(D.C. No. 94-C-1063-W)
(N.D. Okla.)
Defendant-Appellee.
Effective March 31, 1995, the functions of the Secretary of Health and
Human Services in social security cases were transferred to the Commissioner of
Social Security. P.L. No. 103-296. Pursuant to Fed. R. App. Proc. 43(c), Shirley
S. Chater, Commissioner of Social Security, is substituted for Donna E. Shalala,
Secretary of Health and Human Services, as the defendant in this action.
Although we have substituted the Commissioner for the Secretary in the caption,
in the text we continue to refer to the Secretary because she was the appropriate
party at the time of the underlying decision.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
**
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. 34.1.9. The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Patsy Redfearn appeals from an order of the district court affirming the
Secretarys decision denying her application for social security disability benefits.
Ms. Redfearn filed for disability benefits on March 3, 1993. She alleged
disability due to arthritis and a shoulder injury. Her request was denied initially
and on reconsideration. Following a de novo hearing on March 1, 1994, an
administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that she was not disabled within the
meaning of the Social Security Act. The Appeals Council denied review, and
Ms. Redfearn filed suit in district court. The district court affirmed the
Secretarys decision, and she appealed to this court.
We review the Secretarys decision to determine whether the factual
findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record viewed as a whole
and whether the correct legal standards were applied. Andrade v. Secretary of
Health & Human Servs., 985 F.2d 1045, 1047 (10th Cir. 1993). Substantial
evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion. Fowler v. Bowen, 876 F.2d 1451, 1453 (10th
Cir. 1989)(quotation omitted).
-2-
appears to have been prepared as part of a general workup at the return to work
program Ms. Redfearn attended. The profile was not entitled to the great weight
accorded to a treating physicians opinion.
Moreover, we have reviewed the record and have determined that it
contains substantial evidence to support the ALJs ultimate conclusion that Ms.
Redfearns exertional limitations do not prevent her from performing her past
relevant work. The medical evidence does not support the extreme limitations on
sitting, standing, and walking which she alleges. The VE testified that her work
as a dispatcher was sedentary, with occasional reaching and handling, and could
be performed with limitations on overhead reaching. The VE further stated that
the restrictions with use of her hands due to arthritis Ms. Redfearn described
would not prevent her from working as a dispatcher. She could even perform the
job with alternating sitting and standing. Appellants Supp. App. at 67-69.
Ms. Redfearn next asserts that the ALJ failed to develop the record
concerning her depression. Where the evidence presented to the ALJ reveals that
the claimant suffers from a mental disorder, but contains insufficient medical
evidence to evaluate the disorder and its effect on the claimants ability to work,
the ALJ has a duty to further develop the record. See Carter v. Chater, 73 F.3d
1019, 1021-22 (10th Cir. 1996).
-4-
-5-
-6-
The judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Oklahoma is REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED for further
proceedings in accordance with this order and judgment.
Entered for the Court
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-7-