Ruby G. Brawdy, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner of the Social Securityadministration, Defendant-appellee, 66 F.3d 338 (10th Cir. 1995)
Annotate this CaseBefore SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, McKAY and HENRY, Circuit Judges.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
SEYMOUR, Chief Judge.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties' request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. Submitted without oral argument.
Ms. Ruby Brawdy appeals the district court's affirmance of the determination of the Secretary1 that she is not disabled for social security purposes. We have carefully reviewed the entire record and Ms. Brawdy's arguments on appeal. While it appears from the record that Ms. Brawdy's physical condition may be changing for the worse, we are nevertheless persuaded that substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Ms. Brawdy was not disabled prior to April 23, 1991. Moreover, we are not persuaded that the ALJ otherwise erred.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED substantially for the reasons given in the magistrate judge's opinion. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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 the court's General Order filed November 29, 1993. 151 F.R.D. 470
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. P. 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
