Opinion
Civil No. 98-1035 (DRD/JAC).
February 29, 2000.
Fabio A. Roman Garcia, Esq., Puerto Rico, for Plaintiff.
Lilliam E. Mendoza Toro, AUSA, Puerto Rico, for Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Above plaintiff is a 29-year-old male, with high school education and relevant work experience as a correctional officer in a state penal institution. He has been considered entitled to disability benefits from the Social Security Administration as of December 10, 1993, due to a mental condition that severely limited his ability to perform any work-related activity. However, such disability was considered to have ceased on September 19, 1995. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) conducted a hearing on January 19, 1996, wherein claimant's testimony and the vocational expert's testimony were presented. An opinion was issued thereafter stating that claimant was incapable of performing any work during the above-stated period, that is, December 10, 1993 through September 19, 1995, but that continuous treatment and therapy have shown improvement to the extent that he is capable of substantial employment. The vocational expert testified about a series of jobs that were available within the national economy that claimant could perform within the residuals symptoms of his emotional condition. The jobs included garment inspector, packer, and sampler in the textile industry, that were light in physical demands and unskilled. These jobs were repetitive and simple, did not require dealing with the public and had a low-stress level. Since claimant had no exertional impairment or limitation, the ALJ concluded there were job-related activity available that claimant could perform as of September 19, 1995, and his disability has then ceased. The Commissioner of Social Security (the Commissioner) has adopted this determination as the final decision. Plaintiff has filed this judicial action seeking review of the final decision of the Commissioner that found him entitled to disability payments solely through November 30, 1995, the close of the second month after his disability is considered to have ceased. Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
To review the final decision of the Commissioner, courts must determine if the evidence of record meets the substantial evidence criteria to support the Commissioners partial 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.
Falu v. Secretary of Health and Human Services , 703 F.2d 24 (1st Cir. 1983).
Plaintiff performed as a penal guard until he experienced a work-stress condition that caused him to start firing his rifle into the air. He was then hospitalized in a psychiatric ward from December 10 through December 30, 1993, suffering from insomnia, irritability, aggressive and explosive behavior, confusion, and anxiety. The diagnosis upon discharge was intermittent explosive disorder and he was referred to the State Insurance Fund for outpatient psychiatric treatment.
The psychiatric evaluation in 1994 refers the patient has been under medication, including Mellaril, Navane, Restoril, Sinequan, and Cogentin and continued treatment with Dr. Guillen. The patient had little tolerance to frustration and tension, was anxious and irritable and acted with hostility. The mental examination revealed normal motor activity, scarce verbal expression. He was cooperative, not spontaneous. Affect was adequate to the content of thought. Mood was worried. He was logical, coherent and relevant, without a suicidal or homicidal ideas. There were no blockings nor phobias. Self-esteem was preserved. He was oriented in person, place and time, and showed adequate attention and concentration. The patient had adequate general knowledge and ability for abstraction was preserved. He was found competent to manage funds. The functional capacity displayed marked impulsiveness in his behavior in response to psychosocial stressors, with serious limitations to do the type of work he had previously performed. The prognosis was guarded.
A diagnosis from the State Insurance Fund psychiatrist, Dr. Juan A. Guillén, is of latent schizophrenia and six additional psychotherapy sessions were deemed necessary. The patient also received pharmacotherapy for multiple somatic and emotional complaints compatible with his diagnosis. The patient had alert attitude, was cooperative and spontaneous during the interviews. The flow of ideas and tone of voice were adequate. He spoke in a coherent, relevant and logical manner, and was in good contact with reality. There was no blocking. Affect was adequate and the ability to remember remote events was also adequate. Judgment and insight were diminished.
The ALJ concluded that once claimant indeed established inability to perform his past relevant work as a penal guard, the burden shifted to the Commissioner to show the existence of other jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy that he could perform, consistent with his medical determinable impairments, functional limitations, age, education, and work experience.
Through the testimony of the vocational expert, Héctor Guerra Prados, the ALJ propounded that claimant's emotional condition, described as explosive character, was not a compatible with the stressing factors involved in his previous occupation. Since there were no exertional limitations and because of the present emotional condition, he was limited to unskilled jobs, where he need not share with the public and where he could function with minimal supervision. The vocational expert further indicated the jobs that were thus available. These were garment packer, which was repetitive, unskilled and light. There was also no need to deal with the public. In addition, jobs as sampler person and garment inspector, both in the textile and in the electronic industry, were available in significant numbers in the national economy.
Considering the existence of jobs within claimant's residual functional capacity, as well as his age, education and work experience, the Commissioner, adopting the conclusions of the ALJ, considered that although claimant could not return to his past work, he was capable of making a vocational adjustment to other jobs as testified by the vocational expert. As such, claimant was considered not under disability as of November 30, 1995.
This magistrate concludes there is substantial evidence in the record to support the decision issued by the Commissioner.
THEREFORE, the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.
Judgment is to be entered accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
San Juan, Puerto Rico, February 24, 2000.
J. ANTONIO CASTELLANOS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE