Opinion
Civil No. 99-1423 (JAC/HL)
September 26, 2000
For Plaintiff, Fabio A. Román, Esq.
For Defendant, Lilliam E. Mendoza, Assistant U.S. Attorney.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff filed an application for disability insurance benefits with the Social Security Administration requesting entitlement to a determination of disability and ensuing benefits as of onset date of November 20, 1996. He claimed inability to work due to having developed Hepatitis B while working as an ambulance driver for the municipality of Lares, without having provided him with necessary vaccination, and thereafter developing a mental condition. He is insured for disability purposes until December 31, 2001.
The application was initially denied and after the requested administrative hearing was held on April 3, 1998, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an opinion finding that claimant should not be considered to be under disability. This was adopted as the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the Commissioner). Plaintiff now seeks judicial review of this final decision denying his disability claim. Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g).
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 he 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 he 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 him from working in his 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).
Once claimant has established he is unable to perform his previous work, then 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 was a younger individual, 45-years-old, with high school education and semiskilled past relevant work as ambulance driver, which required heavy exertion. The medical evidence established he had undergone treatment by the State Insurance Fund for Hepatitis B and thereafter for generalized anxiety condition. However, said condition has not significantly impaired the claimant's intelligence, good contact with reality, affect or judgment.
The above combination of medical conditions could reasonably be expected to cause the symptoms alleged, but not to the extent claimed and not of disabling frequency or intensity that would prevent claimant from performing light kind of work, without exposure to irritants or chemicals and where avoiding highly stressful work situations. Considering that claimant retained the residual functional capacity for light work, and with the assistance of the vocational expert, the ALJ concluded there were jobs in the national economy that he could still perform. As such, he was considered not to be under disability.
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).
This magistrate has conducted an examination of the medical evidence, including the psychiatric report that was submitted to the Appeals Council subsequent to the ALJ's decision.
The State Insurance Fund notes show the patient was treated for acute Hepatis Type B, without a sequelas. During the initial treatment for his condition, he was described as alert, cooperative, oriented, coherent, and relevant. He looked his chronological age, had erect stance and adequate gait, without showing deformities. His appearance was adequate. He had good personal hygiene. His attitude towards the examiner was of anguish and tension. Psychomotor activity was normal. Verbal expression was normal and fluency was spontaneous. The affect was in accordance with the content of thought, with a tense mood. The flow of thought was normal, without mental blocks or thought disorders. He was oriented in time, place, and person.
After treatment for his organic condition, the patient indicated having no abdominal discomfort, and he was not expected to become a chronic carrier. A sonogram showed normal organs.
An initial psychiatric report in 1997 stated the patient could dress, eat, and bath without supervision or directions. He watched television and listened to the radio. Inter-family and interpersonal relations were adequate. He looked his age and had adequate stance and gait. Psychomotor activity was normal. Verbal expression was normal and fluency was spontaneous.
The patient had no perceptual disorders. The flow of thought was normal with good associations. He was logical, coherent, and relevant. Immediate, recent, past, and remote memories were adequately preserved. Attention and concentration were also preserved. The diagnostic impression in Axis I was of generalized anxiety a disorder. He was referred for a total of five therapy sessions.
The plaintiff submitted the report of his private psychiatrist which he had started recently by the time of the administrative hearing. The Appeals Council had timely received same but considered it did not present new evidence that would merit a departure from the decision issued by the ALJ.
Dr. Juan A. Guillén Figueroa stated the patient was being monthly treated in 1998. He showed good nourishment, was cooperative, non-spontaneous, tense, and anxious. There was psychomotor retardation, but expressed himself in a coherent, relevant and logical fashion, with adequate association of ideas. He was oriented in the three spheres. Immediate and short term memory were poor and recent was diminished. Judgment and insight were adequate. The diagnosis was of generalized anxiety with depression.
The vocational expert, Mr. Miguel Cruz López, testified that if claimant could perform a light job, non skilled, without heavy work stress, there were jobs available, such as packer in the pharmaceutical industry and sealer in the manufacturing industry. There were also jobs as conveyor loader, all of which where light in exertion, simple and repetitive.
The undersigned magistrate considers that an examination of all the evidence in the record as a whole shows 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.