Opinion
CIVIL NO. 99-1713 (CCC-JAC).
August 29, 2000.
William Dominguez-Torres, Esq., for Plaintiff.
Lillaim E. Mendoza-Toro, Assistant U.S. Attorney, for Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Above plaintiff filed this action seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the Commissioner) denying his application for a period of disability and ensuing benefits. Social Security Act, 2 U.S.C. § 405(g). He filed his application for disability insurance benefits on September 26, 1996, alleging inability to work as of December 1995, due to back and left arm pain, diabetes and high blood pressure, and a mental condition. He is insured only through September 30, 1997, for which he must show to have been under disability prior to the expiration of his insured status.
The application was denied initially and upon reconsideration. Thereafter, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) considered the evidence at the hearing held on November 3, 1997, where claimant was represented by counsel and assisted by an interpreter. The opinion issued by the ALJ concluded that on the date the insured status expired, claimant was unable to return to his former work as a carpenter's aid, laborer cleaning yards or as electroplating laborer. He was, however, able to make an adjustment to other work which exists in the national economy, considering his age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity. As such, the ALJ found, and the Commissioner adopted the conclusions as the final decision, that claimant was not under disability.
To be found disabled, claimant must suffer a severe impairment which precludes his ability to perform other forms of substantial gainful activity. The initial showing of disability places on claimant the burden to show inability to perform his past relevant job. The burden then shifts to the Commissioner to prove the existence of other jobs in the national economy that plaintiff can still perform. Goodermore v. Secretary of H.H.S., 690 F.2d 6 (1st Cir. 1982); Torres v. Secretary of H.H.S., 677 F.2d 167 (1st Cir. 1982). See also Vásquez v. Secretary of H.H.S., 683 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1982); Geoffrey v. Secretary of H.H.S., 663 F.2d 315 (1st Cir. 1981).
The ALJ determined claimant had no impairment which meets the criteria of any of the listed impairments. The medical evidence showed he suffered from left shoulder tenosynovitis, lumbar myositis, arterial hypertension, non-insulin dependent diabetes, and major depression. These conditions were considered severe. The claimant was unable to perform his prior work, which required heavy exertion, could not carry more than 20 pounds nor perform tasks that required constant overhead reaching with the left arm or engage in complex, non routine and skilled tasks. Still, claimant retained the residual functional capacity to perform the full range of sedentary work, which was diminished by the aforesaid limitations. The ALJ found that taking the GRID as a framework, and considering claimant's age, which was 42-years-old at the time of alleged disability, limited education and work experience, he was to be considered not disabled. The non-exertional limitations imposed by pain or by his mental condition did not significantly diminish claimant's capacity for work that existed in significant numbers in the national economy, for which a finding of not being under disability was considered appropriate.
This magistrate examined the medical evidence in the record as a whole, which can be succinctly described below. The treatment provided by the State Insurance Fund after a work-related accident when the plaintiff was hit by a truck in the back produced an initial diagnosis of dorsal contusion, herniated nucleous pulposus at L5-S1 and radiculopathy at S1. After treatment the plaintiff returned to work. Shortly thereafter in 1995 he was given treatment while at work for contact dermatitis. Thereafter, the plaintiff sustained another work accident in which he injured his arm and shoulder. The diagnosis was of left rotator cuff tendonitis.
Plaintiff had indicated on September 26, 1996, that he lived alone and took care of most of the house chores depending on how he felt. His relatives would give him a hand from time to time. He would go out shopping, watch television, and listen to the radio. He would visit relatives or neighbors on a daily basis. He was described during the interview as very cooperative and able to provide information, but having difficulty remembering dates.
Regarding his second work accident, plaintiff was given a 20% disability of the physiological functions for loss of movement of the left arm above the elbow by the State Insurance Fund. He was discharged by the orthopedist with painful residuals. The diagnosis was of left shoulder bursitis.
The report of Dr. William Matos, rheumatologist, found after examination that hand grip was normal, no muscles atrophy, and no difficulties to squat, bend, kneel, stoop, grasp, pinch, pull, push or walk. The patient had normal motor and sensitive reflexes. The diagnosis was of degenerative joints disease of lumbar spine, mild lumbar scoliosis, and lumbar myositis. The range of movement of the spine was normal. A radiologist report of the lumbar spine revealed well-preserved disc spaces, mild scoliosis, and straightening compatible with muscle spasms.
As to the mental condition, the psychiatrist diagnosed a mild major depression. He was described with adequate appearance, clean, and casual. Gait was normal. The language was spontaneous, with normal tone of voice. His thoughts were coherent, logical and relevant, without suicidal or homicidal ideas, no evidence of phobias, delusions or ideas of reference and no perception disorders. An evaluation dated 1994 by Dr. Castro de Jesús found appropriate affect with depressed mood. He was oriented in the three spheres. Recent and remote memories were preserved and attention was good; concentration poor. His intellectual capacity, general knowledge and intelligence were normal. The ability for abstraction, judgment and insight were poor. The patient was considered not able to manage funds.
The treating physician, Dr. Yadira Buxó Díaz, indicated the movement of the thorax and shoulder muscles was affected due to myositis. The medical report described the patient as extremely nervous, who frequently did not understand the instructions given. She found a severe anxiety syndrome and indicated he was unable to work.
The ALJ considered that claimant's complaints were not entirely credible in light of the discrepancies between claimant's assertion and the information contained in the documentary reports and the reports of the treating and examining practitioners.
To review the final decision of the Commissioner, courts must determine if the evidence of record meets the substantial evidence criteria to support the Commissioner's denial of plaintiff's disability claim. Substantial evidence is "more than a mere scintilla and such, as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971), quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. N.L.R.B., 305 U.S. 197 (1938). The findings of the Commissioner as to any fact are conclusive, if supported by the above stated substantial evidence.
Falú v. Secretary of HHS, 703 F.2d 24 (1st Cir. 1983).
This magistrate concludes that an examination of the evidence in the record as a whole provides substantial evidence to support the decision of the Commissioner denying plaintiff's entitlement to a period of disability and benefits. Thus, it is hereby AFFIRMED.
The Clerk is to enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
San Juan, Puerto Rico, August 17, 2000.