Michael Dale Adams, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-appellee, 13 F.3d 404 (10th Cir. 1993)

McKAY

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.

Plaintiff appeals the federal district court's ruling affirming the Secretary's denial of Social Security benefits. The role of this court under 42 U.S.C. 405(g) is to determine whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the decision of the Secretary, and not to reweigh the evidence or try the issues de novo. See Brown v. Bowen, 801 F.2d 361, 362 (10th Cir. 1986). If supported by substantial evidence, the Secretary's findings are conclusive and must be affirmed. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 390 (1971). Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, less than a preponderance, and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Id. at 401.

We agree with the district court that the Secretary's decision was supported by substantial evidence and therefore affirm.

AFFIRMED.