Gonzalez-Nieves v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 17

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 2 Complaint filed by Luis Manuel Gonzalez-Nieves, and dismissing with prejudice all claims therein. Judgment shall enter AFFIRMING the Commissioner of Social Security's determination. Signed by Chief Judge Jose A Fuste on 2/18/2010.(mrj)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 U N IT E D STATES DISTRICT COURT D IS T R IC T OF PUERTO RICO L U IS MANUEL GONZÁLEZ-NIEVES, Claimant, v. M IC H A E L S. ASTRUE, R es p o n d en t. C iv il No. 08-2015 (JAF) O P I N IO N AND ORDER C laim an t, Luis Manuel González-Nieves, pro se, petitions this court under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to review the decision of Respondent, Commissioner of Social Security Michael S. A stru e ("Commissioner"), denying Claimant's application for disability benefits. (Docket No. 2.) C o mm iss io n er filed a memorandum defending his determination (Docket No. 15); Claimant n ev er replied, despite our July 20, 2009, deadline to do so (see Docket No. 14). I. F a ctu a l and Procedural History W e derive the following facts from the parties' filings (Docket Nos. 2; 11; 15) and the reco rd in this case ("R.") (Docket No. 10). Claimant was born on September 10, 1973. (R. at 6 5 .) He completed the ninth grade. (R. at 30, 41.) He worked in construction for various em p lo yer s and in various positions from 1993 to 2003. (R. at 41, 86.) He reports that his d isab lin g condition began March 30, 2002. (R. at 65.) He also reports having worked for one Civil No. 08-2015 (JAF) -2 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 m o n th in 2003, helping to make sidewalks for Manatí Public Works, before he stopped due to h is visual impairment.1 (R. at 67, 86.) Claimant applied for Social Security benefits on April 26, 2 0 0 4 . (R. at 16, 65.) His coverage for social security benefits expired on March 31, 2006. (R. at 75.) O n September 7, 2004, Commissioner determined that Claimant was not disabled and, acco rdi n g ly, was not entitled to disability benefits under the Social Security Act. (R. at 52-54.) O n October 6, 2004, Claimant requested reconsideration of the determination. (R. at 55.) C o mmissio n er obliged and, on March 21, 2005, affirmed the earlier denial. (R. at 60-62.) O n April 7, 2005, Claimant requested an administrative hearing before an administrative law judge ("ALJ") (R. at 63), which took place before ALJ Soloman Goldman on June 6, 2007 (R . at 26). Claimant attended the hearing with counsel and testified regarding his alleged d i sab i lity. (R. at 26-38.) A vocational expert, Luis Serrano Vega, also testified at Claimant's h earing . (R. at 39-46.) He opined that Claimant is unable to perform his past work but that he can perform less physically-demanding jobs available in substantial numbers in various in d u s tries . (R. at 43.) When asked by Claimant's counsel, Vega opined that if Claimant actually su ffers from the level of physical impairment to which Claimant attests, Claimant "would have severe limitation to get involved in any work activity in a sustained manner." (R. at 46.) The ALJ, however, affirmatively found that Claimant did not engage in substantial gainful a c tiv ity between the dates of March 30, 2002, and March 31, 2006. (R. at 18.) 1 Civil No. 08-2015 (JAF) -3 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 A lso before the ALJ was the record showing Claimant's history of physical and mental i m p a i rm en t, namely a visual impairment, a fractured femur, lumbar pain, and depression. C l aim an t suffered trauma to his left eye at the age of nine; the cornea of his left eye remains o p aqu e, resulting in poor vision in that eye. (R. at 32, 41, 169.) In 1998, Claimant suffered a fractu re d femur during a car accident, resulting in residual pain and a limp in his left leg. (R. at 32-33, 159, 165.) He also suffers from degenerative disc disease, resulting in radiating lumbar p ain and nerve root compression. (R. at 160, 239.) Finally, Claimant receives treatment for d epress io n . (R. at 269-303.) A cc o rd in g to the medical reports in the record regarding the relevant time period, C laim an t received regular treatment at Morovis Medical Center, where he complained of back an d leg pain and irritation in his eyes. (R. at 206-61 (reports dated December 2003 through M a r c h 2006).) Said reports include intake evaluations, radiology requests, specialist referral fo rm s , and lists of Claimant's medications. (Id.) Reported there are Claimant's complaints of p ain and other symptoms (id.), all of which are also documented elsewhere in the record. C laimant also submitted two visual impairment reports from an examining opthamologist, D r . José Colón-Vaquer, dated May 3 and December 15, 2004. (R. at 151-58.) Both record n o rm al vision in the right eye but extremely impaired vision in the left. On August 4, 2004, C laiman t was examined by an orthopedic surgeon, Dr. César Cintrón-Valle, whose final d iag n o s is showed lost vision in Claimant's left eye and a "completely consolidated" fracture in h is left femur. (R. at 129-39.) On August 27, 2004, having reviewed Claimant's medical Civil No. 08-2015 (JAF) -4 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 reco rd s, an internist, Dr. Rodríguez­de la Obra,2 completed a physical residual functional ca p ac ity assessment, which found Claimant, inter alia, limited in his ability to lift, crouch, crawl, and climb and which recommended that Claimant avoid even moderate exposure to hazards, due to Claimant's fractured femur and visual impairment. (See R. at 141-48.) O n November 23, 2004, the Puerto Rico Family Department evaluated Claimant and d iag n o sed him with degenerative disc disease. (R. at 149-50.) On February 24, 2005, Claimant w as examined by neurologist Dr. Zaida Boria and by radiologist Dr. Eduardo J. Medina­de la B aume . (R. at 159-68.) The results of those examinations reveal, inter alia, degenerative disc d is eas e, impaired vision in the left eye but normal vision in the right, normal motor and sensory fu n cti o n s , normal reflexes, and a negative straight-leg raising test. (Id.) On February 28, 2005, C laiman t was again evaluated by an ophthalmologist, Dr. Juan Nevarez, who reported normal fu n ctio n of the right eye but poor prognosis for the left and recommended that Claimant "avoid activities requiring excellent stereopsis bilateral vision and full visual fields." (R. at 169-71.) A n d on March 15, 2005, an internist, Dr. Magda I. Rodríguez-Colón, completed a second p h ys ica l residual functional capacity assessment, which records Claimant's limitations as to, inter alia, lifting, climbing, stooping, crouching, and vision. (See R. at 172-80.) F in ally, Claimant submitted records of his treatment for depression, most of which p o s td ate the expiration of his eligibility for social-security benefits. (See R. at 269-303.) On 2 Dr. Rodríguez­de la Obra's first name is illegible on the medical record. (See R. at 148.) Civil No. 08-2015 (JAF) -5 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 th o s e records within the relevant time period, Claimant was diagnosed as depressed but logical, co h er en t , and oriented; they contain no evidence of his mental impairment's effect on his relevan t work functions. (See R. at 294-303.) T h e ALJ issued his decision denying Claimant disability benefits on July 27, 2007. (R. at 10-23.) He found, inter alia, that Claimant has a severe impairment in that he suffers from a left femur fracture, left eye traumatic cornel opacification, left eye glaucoma, and lumbar pain; that Claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or med ically equals a listed impairment, discussed below; that Claimant has the residual functional cap acity ("RFC") to perform medium work, though with some additional limitations, discussed b elo w ; and, finally, that Claimant is not disabled, as defined by the Social Security Act. (R. at 1 6 - 2 3 .) In his written opinion, the ALJ surveyed Claimant's relevant medical history to assess an d apply Claimant's RFC. (R. at 18-23). O n August 23, 2007, Claimant sought review of the ALJ's decision from the Appeals C o u n c i l (R. at 9), which denied review on July 9, 2008 (R. at 5-8). On September 9, 2008, C laiman t filed the present petition in this court seeking review of the ALJ's decision. (Docket N o . 2.) Claimant never filed a memorandum of law, and Commissioner filed a memorandum of law on May 29, 2009 (Docket No. 15). Civil No. 08-2015 (JAF) -6 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 II. S ta n d a rd of Review A n individual is disabled under the Social Security Act ("the Act") if he is unable to do h is prior work or, "considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other k ind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy." 42 U.S.C. § 423(d). The A ct provides that "[t]he findings of the Commissioner . . . as to any fact, if supported by su b stan tial evidence, shall be conclusive." § 405(g). Substantial evidence exists "if a reasonable m in d , reviewing the evidence in the record as a whole, could accept it as adequate to support [ th e] conclusion." Irlanda-Ortíz v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 955 F.2d 765, 769 (1st Cir. 1 9 9 1 ) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Rodríguez v. Sec'y of Health & Human S er v s ., 647 F.2d 218, 222 (1st Cir. 1981)). W e must uphold Commissioner's decision if we determine that substantial evidence su p p o rts the ALJ's findings, even if we would have reached a different conclusion had we rev iew e d the evidence de novo. Lizotte v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 654 F.2d 127, 128 (1st Cir. 1981). In reviewing a denial of benefits, the ALJ must consider all evidence in the re co rd . 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3) (2009). Credibility and "[c]onflicts in the evidence are . . . fo r the [ALJ] - rather than the courts - to resolve." Evangelista v. Sec'y of Health & Human S erv s ., 826 F.2d 136, 141 (1st Cir. 1987). We reverse the ALJ only if we find that he derived h is decision "by ignoring evidence, misapplying the law, or judging matters entrusted to ex p er ts ." Nguyen v. Chater, 172 F.3d 31, 35 (1st Cir. 1999). Civil No. 08-2015 (JAF) -7 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 III. A n a l y s is C l aim an t does not detail the alleged shortcomings of Commissioner's decision but claims g e n e rally that "medically determinable physical impairments" entitle him to disability benefits u n d e r the Act. (Docket No. 2.) Because Claimant excludes from that general claim C o m m is s io n er's decision regarding Claimant's mental impairment (see id.), we need not review it.3 In addition, without guidance from Claimant regarding the specific nature of Commissioner's er ro r, we confine our review to the ALJ's determinations that were unfavorable to Claimant. T h u s , we review the ALJ's finding that (1) Claimant's combination of impairments neither meets n o r medically equals a listed impairment (R. at 19); and (2) Claimant, though unable to perform h is past relevant work, has the RFC to hold jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national ec o n o m y (R. at 19-23). A. Im p a irm en ts Neither Meet Nor Equal a Listed Impairment O n c e the ALJ determined that Claimant's physical impairments are severe, he had to con sider whether they, separately or combined, met or equaled a listed medical impairment, see 2 0 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c)-(d), .1525, .1526. The ALJ concluded that they did not. (R. at 19.) To the extent that Claimant meant to plead error in Commissioner's mental-impairment d e t e rm in a t io n , we are satisfied that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's decision. The few medical re c o rd s on file regarding Claimant's mental health during the relevant time period show consistent a d e q u a c y regarding relevant mental functions (see R. at 294-303), and this supports the ALJ's ratings re ga rd in g Claimant's functional-capacity limitations--"mild" in three categories and "none" in the fo u rth and final (R. at 19). With those ratings, the ALJ could properly deem Claimant's mental i m p a i r m e n t non-severe, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a(d)(1), and deny his claim for disability benefits b a s e d on said impairment. 3 Civil No. 08-2015 (JAF) -8 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 W e review the record medical evidence to determine whether substantial evidence supports the A L J 's conclusion. W e first compare Claimant's visual impairment to those listed in the Code of Federal R eg u lation s ("Code"). See 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, pt. A, 2.02 (loss of visual acuity); id . at 2.03 (contraction of the visual field in the better eye); id. at 2.04 (loss of visual efficiency). E ach of the listed visual impairments contemplates an impairment of the better eye, to varying effect. Upon review of the record medical evidence regarding Claimant's visual impairment, we find that he suffers from no such impairment of his better eye. (See, e.g., R. at 151-58; 169-71.) T h ere is scant evidence of abnormality in his better eye (see R. at 176 (noting decreased visual field in Claimant's right eye, given "widest diameter near 54 degree but with reduced upper field ")) and nothing that amounts to any abnormality listed in the Code. Nor is there any eviden ce that Claimant's visual impairment medically equals the symptoms described in the r elev a n t listings. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1526(b)(1). We conclude that substantial evidence exists to support the ALJ's determination that Claimant's visual impairment neither meets nor equals a listed visual impairment. W e next consider Claimant's musculoskeletal impairments, those of his femur and spine. W h ile the Code's relevant listed impairment includes a fractured femur, see 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, s u b p t. P, app. 1, pt. A, 1.06, a claimant's impairment will not meet said listing unless acco m p an ied by an "[i]nability to ambulate effectively," id., which the Code defines generally as the inability to walk "without the use of a hand-held assistive device," id. at 1.00B2b. Civil No. 08-2015 (JAF) -9 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 T h o u g h the record reveals that Claimant walked with a limp, favoring his left leg (see R. at 165), th e re is no evidence that he was unable to ambulate effectively, as defined in the Code. Nor is th ere any evidence that Claimant's fractured femur medically equals the symptoms described in th e relevant listing. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1526(b)(1). We, thus, conclude that substantial eviden ce supports the ALJ's determination that Claimant's fractured femur neither meets nor eq u als the listed impairment regarding fractured femurs. A s to Claimant's spinal impairment, we look to the Code's listing of spinal disorders, 20 C .F .R . pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, pt. A, 1.04. Said listing requires that a claimant display an enu mer ated spinal disorder, one of which is degenerative disc disease, plus (1) evidence of nerve ro o t compression accompanied by sensory or reflex loss and, if the lower back is involved, a p o sitiv e straight-leg raising ("SLR") test, id. at 1.04A; (2) spinal arachnoiditis, id. at 1.04B; or (3) lumbar spinal stenosis resulting in the inability to ambulate effectively, id. at 1.04C. The re co rd shows that Claimant suffers from degenerative disc disease but, as just discussed, co n tain s no evidence that Claimant was unable to ambulate effectively, nor does it contain any ev id en ce of spinal arachnoiditis. As to the only remaining listing, section 1.04A, we find that C laiman t did adduce evidence of nerve root compression (R. at 239) but that the only SLR test in the record was negative (R. at 161). There is no evidence that Claimant's spinal impairment, n ev er th ele s s , medically equals the symptoms described in the relevant listings. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1526(b)(1). Thus, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the ALJ's determination th at Claimant's spinal impairment neither meets nor equals a listed spinal impairment. Civil No. 08-2015 (JAF) -1 0 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 H a v in g searched the listed impairments, and based on our review of the record, we also fin d that substantial evidence supports the ALJ's determination that no other listed impairment is closely analogous to any one or combination of Claimant's impairments. See § 404.1526(b)(2)-(3). B. R esid u a l Functional Capacity to Hold Other Employment T o conclude, finally, that Claimant is not disabled, the ALJ first had to assess Claimant's R F C and then use that assessment to determine whether Claimant could perform his past relevant w o rk or, if not, nevertheless adjust to other work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), .1545, .1560.1 5 6 9 a. Section 404.1545 guides the ALJ's assessment of RFC, which is defined as "the most [o n e] can do despite [one's] limitations." § 404.1545(a)(1). The ALJ must use "all of the r elev a n t medical and other evidence" to assess RFC. § 404.1545(a)(3). Section 404.1529 guides th e ALJ's evaluation of symptoms and their effect on a claimant's capacity for work. See, e.g., § 404.1529(c), (d)(4). T h e ALJ found that Claimant has the RFC "to perform medium work except . . . is limited to climbing, stooping and crouching only occasionally" and must "avoid even moderate exposure to hazards and avoid work that requires perfect steropsis [sic], binocular vision or perfect upper v isu al fields." (R. at 19.) In so finding, the ALJ considered Claimant's symptoms, noting that th e "objective evidence of record establishe[s] the presence of medical impairments . . . but not to the extent claimed." (R. at 21.) Civil No. 08-2015 (JAF) -1 1 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 S ectio n 404.1567(c) defines "medium work" as the ability to "frequently" lift or carry o b jects weighing up to twenty-five pounds but to lift no more than fifty pounds. Dr. Boria rep o rted that Claimant is unable to lift objects weighing thirty pounds or more (R. at 162), but D r s. Rodríguez­de la Obra and Rodríguez-Colón both concluded that Claimant can perform med iu m work, as defined under § 404.1567(c) (see R. at 142, 174). We find that substantial ev id en ce supports the ALJ's determination that Claimant can perform medium work. (See R. at 21 (noting Claimant's response to prescribed treatment and his absence of persistent mu sculo sk eletal pathology as corroboration for said determination).) W e also find that the other limiting factors the ALJ identified are supported by substantial ev i d en c e. (See, e.g., R. at 141-48, 173-80.) Claimant indicates no other limiting factors the ALJ o v erlo o k ed (Docket No. 2), and our review of the record similarly reveals no further limiting fa cto rs . We thus find the ALJ's finding as to Claimant's RFC on the whole supported by s u b s tan tia l evidence. N e x t, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant, given his particular RFC, can p erfo rm past relevant work. See §§ 404.1520(f), .1560(b). A vocational expert may be used to aid this determination. § 404.1560(b)(2). The ALJ found Claimant unable to perform his past relevan t work, given Claimant's RFC to perform "a narrow range of medium work." (R. at 22.) C laiman t does not dispute this finding (Docket No. 2), and we find it supported by substantial ev id en ce (see, e.g., R. at 40-43). Civil No. 08-2015 (JAF) -1 2 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 F in ally, if the ALJ finds that the claimant's RFC precludes his return to past relevant w o rk , the ALJ must then determine whether said RFC, nevertheless, permits other work that exists in substantial numbers in the national economy. See §§ 404.1520(g), .1545(a)(5)(ii); see als o §§ 404.1560-.1569a (guidelines for assessing vocationally relevant factors such as age, ed u catio n , work experience, and work availability); 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 2 ("Medical V o c atio n al Guidelines"); id. § 203.00 (framework for decisions involving a sustained work capabil ity limited to medium work). With reference to both the framework provided by the M ed ical Vocational Guidelines and the vocational expert's testimony, the ALJ determined that C laiman t is "capable of making a successful adjustment to other work that exist[s] in significant n u m b e r s in the national economy." (R. at 22-23.) Upon review of the record, we find that s u b s tan t ial evidence supports this determination (see, e.g., R. at 43) and, thus, uphold the ALJ's atten d an t conclusion that Claimant is not disabled. III. C o n clu s io n In view of the foregoing, we hereby AFFIRM Commissioner's determination. We DENY C laim an t's petition (Docket No. 2) and DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE all claims therein. I T IS SO ORDERED. S an Juan, Puerto Rico, this 18 th day of February, 2010. s / J o s é Antonio Fusté JOSE ANTONIO FUSTE Chief U.S. District Judge

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?