Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Kirby W. Routt v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, 936 F.2d 583, 10th Cir. (1991)
Kirby W. Routt v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, 936 F.2d 583, 10th Cir. (1991)
2d 583
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Tenth Circuit Rule 36.3 states that unpublished
opinions and orders and judgments have no precedential value
and shall not be cited except for purposes of establishing the
doctrines of the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral
estoppel.
Kirby W. ROUTT, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Louis W. SULLIVAN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human
Services, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 90-5220.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination
of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
the Secretary. Hill v. Sullivan, 924 F.2d 972, 973 (10th Cir.1991).
3
On appeal, claimant contends that 1) the ALJ's determination that he was not
disabled because he retained the ability to do light and sedentary work, with
certain limitations, was not supported by substantial evidence, 2) the ALJ failed
to properly develop claimant's case at his de novo hearing, and 3) the ALJ
posed an incomplete hypothetical question to the vocational expert at claimant's
hearing.
Based on our careful review of the entire appellate record and parties' briefs, we
conclude that substantial evidence supports the Secretary's findings that
claimant was not disabled. Therefore, for substantially the same reasons
contained in the United States magistrate judge's findings and
recommendations dated May 24, 1990, and the district court order dated
September 27, 1990, the judgment of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.
This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not be cited, or
used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except for purposes of establishing
the doctrines of the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th
Cir.R. 36.3