Robert B. Pitts, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner of Social Security,1 Defendant-appellee, 73 F.3d 374 (10th Cir. 1995)

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.

Plaintiff Robert B. Pitts, Jr., appeals the district court's judgment affirming the denial of his application for social security disability benefits and for supplemental security income by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. On appeal plaintiff asserts that the adverse findings against him were not based on substantial evidence, and that the decision was based on improper questions the administrative law judge (ALJ) asked the vocational expert witness.

We review to determine whether the Secretary's findings were supported by substantial evidence based on the entire record, and whether she applied the correct legal standards. Castellano v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 26 F.3d 1027, 1028 (10th Cir. 1994). We do not reweigh the evidence. Hamilton v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 961 F.2d 1495, 1498 (10th Cir. 1992). In determining whether the ALJ asked an improper question of the vocational expert we note that the question posed need include only impairments the ALJ permissibly finds are established by the evidence. See Gay v. Sullivan, 986 F.2d 1336, 1341 (10th Cir. 1993).

We have carefully examined the record. Plaintiff presented a significant amount of written medical evidence from his many visits to doctors and to the Veterans Administration Hospital with respect to his various health complaints. At the hearing the only oral evidence he presented was his personal testimony. The ALJ's decision denying benefits is comprehensive and accurately reflects plaintiff's medical history. It makes credibility determinations that are within the proper scope for a trier of fact and not clearly erroneous. We find no error in the ALJ's application of the law. Based upon his fact findings the hypothetical questions the ALJ asked the vocational expert were proper. We therefore affirm on the basis of and substantially for the reasons stated in the ALJ's decision of May 2, 1992, which was affirmed by the Appeals Council and the district court.

AFFIRMED.