Opinion
Civil No. 99-1388 (PG/JAC).
March 31, 2000.
Melba N. Rivera-Camacho, Esq., Puerto Rico, for Plaintiff.
Lilliam E. Mendoza Toro, AUSA, Puerto Rico, for Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff has filed this action seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the Commissioner) who denied his application for entitlement to a period of disability and benefits thereunder. Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). He has filed his application for disability insurance benefits claiming inability to work since June 25, 1995, due to musculoskeletal condition, resulting from wrist and ankle fractures, epilepsy, asthma, AIDS, and a mental impairment. The medical evidence refers mostly to the complications and limitations resulting from a falling accident wherein plaintiff fractured his wrist and ankle and underwent surgery. He has also complained of pain to the shoulder and paresthesia of upper extremities.
After the initial application was denied, an administrative hearing was held on October 6, 1997, where plaintiff was represented by a non-attorney and was examined by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) with the assistant of an interpreter. He referred to pain and the effects of medication to alleviate same, mainly Tylenol with codeine, causing drowsiness.
Claimant complained he is unable to bend, is limited as to the weight he could lift and carry and unable to do house chores.
In its opinion the ALJ concluded there was no need to engage in consideration of this limitation since "it is customary in traditional Puerto Rican households for the wife or live-in female companion to take care of these chores". Whether claimant's companion complies with this administratively predetermined profile is not to be determined at this juncture by a federal court regardless that it shows both erroneous judgments of fact and bias non-judiciary considerations for a disability aspect not to be ruled by regional, traditional, or gender subjective determinations.
The ALJ concluded that the medical evidence does not support the allegations of severe pain in the right arm, shoulder, and ankle. There was no evidence that claimant could not take care of his personal needs during the period at issue. Still, giving benefit that claimant's previous work experience as a construction laborer required very heavy physical exertion, the ALJ concluded he was unable to perform same. However, he was found able to return to his previous past relevant work as a punch press operator or as an assembler, requiring medium and light exertion, respectively. Determining that claimant had no limitation in his exertional capacity and no neurological deficit, nor any inability to stand, walk, sit or lift or carry objects, he was found not to be under disability.
To be found disabled claimant must suffer a severe impairment which precludes his/her 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. 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 also Vázquez 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).
A perusal of the medical evidence shows that at the Hospital Dr. Dominguez, the patient complained through 1995 of right shoulder pain, but was found without joint or bone abnormality. Hospital's notes indicated a compressed fracture of the right wrist and the ankle after the patient suffered a fall from a tree. He underwent surgery and was placed in cast for two months. An orthopedic examination dated 1996 showed no atrophy of the upper extremities, slight edema in the right wrist with normal movement and good strength. The lower extremities had no atrophy and no swelling. There was no limitation as to the ability to sit, stand, walk, lift and carry weight, hear, speak, travel, etc. No further treatment was required. The range of motion was normal. A medical examination by Dr. Rodriguez-Colón stated the first examination was on June 7, 1996. The patient had been treated previously elsewhere for multiple fracture. It refers to severe pain and painful motion at right upper joints and wrist The physician refers to injuries to both wrists and right ankle and to the right shoulder, with residual deformity. As assistive device, a cane was considered necessary intermittently. The patient was considered able to climb, balance, stoop, kneel, and crouch occasionally. The ALJ considered the above medical report, but concluded injury to both wrist and shoulders do not appear in any of the diagnostic test of record or were observed by any of the other examining physicians. Since Dr. Rodriguez first examined the patient in 1996, reference to injuries four years previously lacked first hand knowledge of said conditions.
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.
Falu v. Secretary of H.H.S., 703 F.2d 24 (1st Cir. 1983).
WHEREFORE, having found substantial evidence to support the decision of the Commissioner, same is hereby AFFIRMED.
The Clerk is ordered to enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, March 31, 2000.
J. ANTONIO CASTELLANOS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE