Frances Stanley, Plaintiff-appellant, v. John J. Callahan, Acting Commissioner, Social Securityadministration,* Defendant-appellee, 124 F.3d 217 (10th Cir. 1997)

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. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff-appellant Frances Stanley appeals from an order of the magistrate judge¹  affirming the decision of the Commissioner to deny disability insurance benefits on the grounds that she was not disabled as of September 30, 1989, the date her insured status lapsed.²  We exercise our jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (3) and affirm.

Ms. Stanley resigned from her position as a spool-winder for a manufacturer of fishing rods and reels in 1985, due to problems with her back and high blood pressure. In September 1989, she received an initial diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (lupus), a progressive disease characterized by exacerbations and remissions. During that month, a treating physician noted that she was "not in an apparent flare," R. Vol. I at 199, that the disease was "quiescent," id. at 198, and that her symptoms required nothing stronger than a nonsteroidal agent, id. at 197-98. Ms. Stanley filed an application for disability benefits on September 22, 1989.

Based on the medical evidence, as well as the testimony provided by Ms. Stanley, her son, a medical expert, and a vocational expert, the administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that Ms. Stanley did have lupus as of September 30, 1989, but the disease did not impair her ability to do basic work activities at that time. He therefore determined, at step two of the five-step process for evaluating social security claims, that Ms. Stanley did not have a medically severe impairment or, alternatively, at step four, that she was able to perform her past relevant work. See Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750-51 (10th Cir. 1988) (discussing the five-step process in detail). The Appeals Council denied Ms. Stanley's request for review, so that the decision of the ALJ became the final decision of the Commissioner.

On judicial review in the district court, Ms. Stanley argued that the Commissioner's decision should be reversed for four reasons: (1) the ALJ failed to apply the "treating physician rule" or follow the previous order of remand; (2) the ALJ improperly discounted the credibility of her testimony; (3) the ALJ refused to recognize that her lupus prevented her from working on a regular basis; and (4) the ALJ improperly evaluated her complaints of pain. In a thoughtful and well-drafted opinion, the magistrate judge addressed each of Ms. Stanley's issues, rejected her arguments, and affirmed the decision of the Commissioner. On appeal, Ms. Stanley essentially repeats the arguments she made to the magistrate judge.

We review the Commissioner's decision to determine whether her factual findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record viewed as a whole and whether she applied the correct legal standards. See Castellano v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 26 F.3d 1027, 1028 (10th Cir. 1994). Because Ms. Stanley does not dispute that her insured status expired on September 30, 1989, our focus is on whether the evidence established that she was disabled prior to that date. See Miller v. Chater, 99 F.3d 972, 975 (10th Cir. 1996).

After a review of the entire record, we determine that Ms. Stanley failed to sustain her burden. We AFFIRM the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma for substantially the same reasons stated in the order of the magistrate judge, a copy thereof being attached hereto.