Opinion
Civil No. 99-1579 (JAC-PG)
September 26, 2000
For Plaintiff, Melba N. Rivera, Esq.
For Defendant, Lilliam E. Medoza, Assistant U.S. Attorney.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff filed this application for disability insurance benefits with the Social Security Administration requesting entitlement to a determination of disability and ensuing benefits on February 22, 1994. She meets the disability insurance requirements through December 31, 1994. Plaintiff, who is 49 years old, but 43-years-old at the alleged time of disability, with ninth-grade education and past relevant work as a welder and sewing machine operator, claimed inability to work due to thrombophlebitis and depression as of December 22, 1988.
The application was initially denied and after the requested administrative hearing was held, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an opinion finding that claimant should not be considered to be under disability. This determination was adopted as the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the Commissioner). Plaintiff now seeks judicial review of this final decision denying her disability claim. Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g).
An error in the earning records was administratively corrected and claimant was credited with the necessary wages to allow computation of the proper dates for disability insurance purposes.
Section 205(g) provides:
"[t]he court shall have power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcripts of record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing".
To establish entitlement to benefits, claimant has the burden of proving that she became disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. Disability is determined in §§ 216(i)(1) and 223(d)(1), 42 U.S.C. 416(i)(1) and 423(d)(1). See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 107 S.Ct. 2287, 2294 n. 5 (1987); Deblois v. Secretary of H.H.S., 686 F.2d 76, 79 (1st Cir. 1982). Claimant may be considered disabled if she is unable to perform any substantial gainful employment because of a medical condition that is expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12 months. The impairments imposed by the condition or combination of conditions must be so severe as to prevent her from working in her usual occupation and in any other substantial gainful employment upon further taking in consideration age, education, training, and work experience. Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(2)(A). Only when claimant is able to establish that she is unable to perform her previous work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove the existence of other jobs in significant numbers in the national economy that claimant is still able to perform. Goodermote v. Secretary of H.H.S., 690 F.2d 5 (1st Cir. 1982); Torres v. Secretary of H.H.S., 677 F.2d 167 (1st Cir. 1982). See Vázauez 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 that claimant retained the capacity to perform her previous work as a sewing machine operator, which required light level of exertion and was routine. Consideration of the medical evidence regarding her exertional and non-exertional conditions indicated she suffered from venous insufficiency, without limitation of motion and no neurological deficit. Her mental condition imposed some limitation to her ability to perform work, but was mostly caused by interpersonal a problems with family members. She had undergone treatment at Mental Health Clinic and with medication she showed marked improvements of symptoms.
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 H.H.S., 703 F.2d 24 (1st Cir. 1983).
The record indicates that plaintiff was once hospitalized for thrombophlebitis for about 17 days and thereafter has been taking anticoagulants for her condition. She attended mental health treatment and was described in 1993 as having good personal appearance, alert, cooperative, manageable, who was experiencing problems with her husband and youngest daughter. She was given medication to allow her to sleep and rest and for her depressive condition without side effects, except for upset stomach for which she was given Tagamet. She has stated that when she takes medication, she functions adequately within her limitations.
The patient was found friendly and cooperative, with normal speech, affect was normal. She was alert, with adequate concentration and attention. Judgment and insight were appropriate. On numerous instances she did not keep up with her medical appointments. Still, other times the patient was logical, coherent and relevant, well oriented in the three spheres, without hallucinations or suicidal ideas. Mood was at ease. She has undergone and completed vocational studies in order to establish a flower shop. Upon treatment and counseling sessions the relations at her home have been improving. Notes from the Department of Health, Caguas Mental Health Center, indicated a prior diagnosis of major depression by 1990 that upon revaluation showed great improvement. No final diagnosis was available.
In 1994, she was fairly at ease, taking her medication and able to sleep well. Problems at her home have resolved and she appeared in good mood. In 1995, after her insured status had expired, she was anxious and impatient with family situations since they were living with more than nine persons at her home and with marriage problems still unresolved.
The ALJ concluded that as of December 31, 1994, claimant was suffering from peripheral venous insufficiency and an emotional condition, but these by themselves or in combination did not meet or equal the severity requirements under the Social Security Act. Although her venous insufficiency could cause her some pain and discomfort, the evidence did not support her subjective complaints and functional limitations to the extend alleged nor limited her daily activities. Claimant should, however, avoid medium to heavy exertion to prevent exacerbation of the condition. She was able to push and pull up to 10 pounds frequently and 20 pounds occasionally, to stand, walk and sit for about two hours during an eight-hour work period with normal breaks. Since her previous work as a sewing machine operator was not precluded by above functional limitations, she was still able to perform same.
Having reviewed all the record and the medical evidence therein, the undersigned magistrate finds there is substantial evidence to support the final decision issued by the Commissioner and thus it is AFFIRMED.
The Clerk is to enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.