SANTIAGO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Filing
16
OPINION. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 8/31/2016. (JB, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
____________________________________
LUIS SANTIAGO,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
:
SECURITY,
:
:
Defendant.
:
____________________________________:
Civil Action No. 15-7579 (SRC)
OPINION
CHESLER, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on the appeal by Plaintiff Luis Santiago (“Plaintiff”)
of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) determining that
he was not disabled under the Social Security Act (the “Act”). This Court exercises jurisdiction
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and, having considered the submissions of the parties without
oral argument, pursuant to L. CIV. R. 9.1(b), finds that the Commissioner’s decision will be
affirmed.
In brief, this appeal arises from Plaintiff’s application for supplemental security and
disability benefits, alleging disability beginning June 30, 2012. A hearing was held before ALJ
Kimberly L. Schiro (the “ALJ”) on February 11, 2014, and the ALJ issued an unfavorable
decision on May 20, 2014, finding Plaintiff not disabled. After the Appeals Council denied
Plaintiff’s request for review, the ALJ’s decision became the Commissioner’s final decision, and
Plaintiff filed this appeal.
In the decision of May 20, 2014, the ALJ found that, at step three, Plaintiff did not meet
or equal any of the Listings. At step four, the ALJ found that Plaintiff retained the residual
functional capacity to perform sedentary work, with certain important limitations, particularly
the restrictions to simple and routine tasks, and to no contact with the public. At step four, the
ALJ also found that Plaintiff did not retain the residual functional capacity to perform his past
relevant work. At step five, the ALJ consulted a vocational expert and concluded that there are
other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy which the claimant can
perform, consistent with his medical impairments, age, education, past work experience, and
residual functional capacity. The ALJ concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled within the
meaning of the Act.
On appeal, Plaintiff argues that the Commissioner’s decision should be reversed and the
case remanded on two grounds: 1) at step two, the ALJ erred in not finding gastrointestinal
impairments to be a severe impairment; and 2) at step four, the residual functional capacity
determination is not supported by substantial evidence.
As to Plaintiff’s first argument, that the ALJ erred at step two in not finding
gastrointestinal impairments to be a severe impairment, this cannot be more than harmless error.
The ALJ found four other severe impairments at step two, and adding one more to that list would
not have had any impact on the outcome of the five-step analysis. The ALJ considered the
evidence of gastrointestinal impairments – diverticulitis and bowel obstruction – at step four; the
decision at step two did not prejudice Plaintiff.
Plaintiff next argues that, at step four, the residual functional capacity determination is
not supported by substantial evidence. In making the step four residual functional capacity
determination, the ALJ stated that she gave greatest weight to the opinions of consultative
2
examining physician Dr. Patel, and agency reviewers Drs. Burk and Galakos. (Tr. 29.) Dr. Patel
examined Plaintiff and issued a report on October 2, 2012, stating that no sensory, motor, or
other deficits were found. (Tr. 773-6.) On October 25, 2012, state agency reviewer Dr. Burk
completed a physical residual functional capacity assessment which found certain exertional
limitations, consistent with the definition of a limitation to sedentary work, as defined in 20
C.F.R. § 404.1567(a). (Tr. 80-82.) On January 8, 2013, agency reviewer Dr. Galakos confirmed
Dr. Burk’s assessment. (Tr. 100.) Plaintiff cites no contradictory or conflicting residual
functional capacity determination in the record. Nor does Plaintiff point to any statement from
any medical source that finds greater restrictions on Plaintiff’s ability to work. This Court finds
that the reports from the three physicians, Drs. Patel, Burk, and Galakos, constitute substantial
evidence which supports the residual functional capacity determination at step four.
Plaintiff has failed to persuade this Court that the ALJ erred in her decision or that he was
harmed by any errors. This Court finds that the Commissioner’s decision is supported by
substantial evidence and is affirmed.
s/ Stanley R. Chesler
STANLEY R. CHESLER, U.S.D.J.
Dated: August 31, 2016
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?