John L. Waterdown v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 153 F.3d 730 (10th Cir. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
John L. Waterdown v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 153 F.3d 730 (10th Cir. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
32 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Jernigan v. Valencia (nmd, 2022-09-19)
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Jernigan v. Valencia
D.N.M. · 2022 · confidence medium
See Collins, 603 F.2d at 827 ; Williams v. Levansailor, 153 F.3d 730, *1 (Table) (10th Cir. 1998) (collecting cases).
discussed Cited "see" Morris v. Curry County Adult Detention Center
D.N.M. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams v. Levansailor, 153 F.3d 730 (Table), 1998 WL 426865, at *1 (10th Cir. 1998) (collecting cases and noting that while the use of a racial slur “is deplorable and unprofessional,” it does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation).
cited Cited "see" Hughes (ID 105577) v. Graham
D. Kan. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams v. Levansailor, 153 F.3d 730 (Table), 1998 WL 426865, at *1 (10th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted).
cited Cited "see" Dangim v. State of New Mexico
D.N.M. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams v. Levansailor, 153 F.3d 730, *1 (10th Cir. 1998) (collecting cases finding verbal abuse alone is not actionable) (unpublished).
cited Cited "see" Page (ID 122717) v. Schnurr
D. Kan. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams v. Levansailor, 153 F.3d 730 (Table) (10th Cir. 1998) (collecting cases).
cited Cited "see" Crowson v. Washington County State, Utah
10th Cir. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See 153 F.3d 730 (10th Cir. 1998) (unpublished).
cited Cited "see" Seay v. Oklahoma Board of Dentistry
W.D. Okla. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Yarbrough v. City of Kingfisher, 153 F.3d 730 (10th 3 For example, Plaintiffs point to a subsequent act: Defendants declining to review Plaintiff Seay’s application on June 16, 2017.
discussed Cited "see" White v. Embry
10th Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See White v. McKinna, 153 F.3d 730 , 1998 WL 396561 (10th Cir. 1998). -2- magistrate judge ordered Petitioner to show cause why the habeas corpus petition should not be denied as a mixed petition because it raised claims that were not exhausted in state court.
discussed Cited "see" Jones v. Culinary Manager II
E.D. Pa. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
Oct.17, 1996); see generally Yarbrough v. City of Kingfisher, No. 97-6352, 1998 WL 427122, * 2 , 153 F.3d 730 (10th Cir. July 14, 1998)(unpublished table decision) (verbal harassment or abuse is insufficient to state a constitutional violation under § 1983); Young v. Ward, No. 97-3043, 1998 WL 384564 , *1, 149 F.3d 1185 (6th Cir. June 18, 1998) (unpublished table deeision)(verbal harassment does not constitute punishment within Eighth Amendment); Sule v. Wait, No. 96-35168, 1997 WL 144198 , 110 F.3d 70 (9th Cir. Mar. 26, 1997) (unpublished table decision).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Osborn v. Meitzen
E.D. Okla. · 2020 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Yarbrough v. City of Kingfisher, 153 F.3d 730 , 1998 WL 427122, at *3 (10th Cir. July 14, 1988) (unpublished Table Opinion) (“[A] plaintiff must show that the municipal action was taken with the requisite degree of culpability and must demonstrate a direct causal link between the municipal action and the deprivation of federal rights.”) (quoting Board of County Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 404 (1997)).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Claro v. Sulphur, City of
E.D. Okla. · 2019 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Yarbrough v. City of Kingfisher, 153 F.3d 730 , 1998 WL 427122, at *3 (10th Cir. July 14, 1988) (unpublished Table Opinion) (“[A] plaintiff must show that the municipal action was taken with the requisite degree of culpability and must demonstrate a direct causal link between the municipal action and the deprivation of federal rights.”), quoting Board of County Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 404 (1997).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Estate of Redd v. Love
D. Utah · 2014 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Williams v. Levansatlor, 153 F.3d 730 (10th Cir.1998) (unpublished) (stating that an officer's racial jokes made in the presence of an inmate were "deplorable and unprofessional” but concluding that this conduct did not "constitute a violation of plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment rights”); Northington v. Jackson, 973 F.2d 1518, 1524 (10th Cir.1992) (verbal threats and harassment not actionable in civil rights action for cruel and unusual punishment); and Collins v. Cundy, 603 F.2d 825, 827 (10th Cir.1979) (holding that an inmate's allegations that a "sheriff laughed at him and th…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
John L. Waterdown
v.
Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner, Social Security Administration
97-5214.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Jul 31, 1998.
153 F.3d 730
Published

153 F.3d 730

98 CJ C.A.R. 4179

NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or further order.

John L. WATERDOWN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Kenneth S. APFEL, Commissioner, Social Security
Administration, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 97-5214.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

July 31, 1998.

1

Before TACHA and McKAY, Circuit Judges, and BROWN,[**] Senior District Judge.

2

ORDER AND JUDGMENT[*]

3

BROWN, Sr.DJ.

4

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.

5

Claimant John L. Waterdown appeals from the district court's order affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying his application for Supplemental Security Income Benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. Claimant applied for benefits in 1994, alleging disability as of May 4, 1994, as a result of nervousness, shortness of breath, arthritis, and dizziness. Claimant's request for benefits was denied administratively and upon reconsideration.

6

A hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ) resulted in a decision that claimant was not disabled. Agency regulations establish a five-part test to determine disability under the Social Security Act. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920; Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750-52 (10th Cir.1988) (discussing five steps in detail). In this case, the ALJ reached step five of the analysis, determining that, while claimant could not return to his past work, he was capable of work available in the national economy. The Appeals Council denied review, and claimant filed suit in federal district court. The magistrate judge's order affirmed the agency's decision to deny claimant benefits.[1]

7

Our review of the agency's decision is limited to determining whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole and whether the correct legal standards were applied. See Castellano v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 26 F.3d 1027, 1028 (10th Cir.1994). On appeal, claimant contends that 1) the ALJ's residual functional capacity assessment reflects errors in his review of the medical records, lacks evidentiary support, and fails to properly identify evidence in support of his determination that claimant's testimony was not credible, and 2) the ALJ's step five determination that claimant could perform work in the national economy is based on vocational testimony elicited by an incomplete hypothetical question.

8

After consideration of the arguments presented, and after careful review of the record on appeal, we conclude that the district court correctly decided this case. Therefore, for substantially the same reasons set forth in the magistrate judge's order dated September 17, 1997, the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.

**

Honorable Wesley E. Brown, Senior District Judge, United States District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation

*

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

1

The parties consented to proceed before the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). Accordingly, our jurisdiction over this appeals arises under § 636(c)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291