but determined that she did not have “any functional restrictions ... that would preclude light work activity,” id. at 18. The ALJ described Ms. Led-ford’s residual functional capacity (RFC) as follows: lift/carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently; sit 6 hours out of an 8-hour workday; stand 6 hours out of an 8-hour workday; no overhead or above shoulder work; moderate limitations to follow and carry out detailed instructions; mild to moderate occasional chronic pain but could carry out normal work assignments satisfactorily. Id. at 18-19. Relying on the testimony of a vocational expert (VE), the ALJ made alternative determinations at steps four and five of the familiar five-step sequential evaluation process. See Murrell v. Shalala, 43 F.3d 1388, 1389 (10th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750-52 (10th
holding that benefits eligibility determinations by the social security administralion are not binding on disability insurers holding that an eic was neither a social security benefit nor a local public assistance benefit recognizing the benefit of alternative determinations in the social security review process holding that eaja applies to court proceedings for review of social security cases holding a social security number is not private