Trinidad-Quiles v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
41
OPINION AND ORDER adopting 30 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION and, accordingly, granting 22 MOTION requesting an Order Affirming the Final Decision filed by Commissioner of Social Security. Judgment shall be entered accordingly. Signed by Judge Jay A Garcia-Gregory on 04/12/2011.(DPS)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
JOSE A. TRINIDAD QUILES
Plaintiff
CIVIL NO. 09-2178 (JAG)
v.
COMMISIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Defendants
OPINION AND ORDER
On November 11, 2009, José A. Trinidad Quiles (“Plaintiff”)
appearing pro se sought review, pursuant to section 205(g) of
the Social Security Act (the “Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), of a
final
determination
rendered
by
the
Commissioner
denying
request of disability insurance benefits (Docket No. 2).
his
The
Commissioner filed a Motion Requesting an Order Affirming the
Final Decision (Docket No. 22). Plaintiff, on the other hand,
failed
to
file
notwithstanding
a
the
memorandum
fact
that
in
the
support
Court
of
granted
his
petition
him
several
extensions of time to do so. (Docket Nos. 8; 18; 24; 26).
On
September
27,
2010,
the
case
was
referred
to
a
Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation. (Docket No.
28). On December 1, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report
and
Recommendation
advising
the
Court
Commissioner’s decision. (Docket No. 30).
to
affirm
the
Civil No. 09-2178 (JAG)
2
Within the prescribed period to file objection, Plaintiff
requested
an
extension
of
time
in
order
to
find
legal
representation. (Docket No. 31). The Court granted the extension
and
advised
counsel.
him
(Docket
to
request
No.
32).
the
appointment
Plaintiff
completed
of
a
the
pro
bono
necessary
documentation and the Clerk appointed an attorney. (Docket No.
35).
Plaintiff,
through
the
newly
appointed
counsel,
filed
Objections to the Report and Recommendation. (Docket No. 39). He
argues, in essence, that the Magistrate Judge erred in finding
that the evidence revealed that there was no objective evidence
of physical deficits that would prevent him from performing any
gainful
activity
entirely
and
credible.
in
The
finding
that
Commissioner
his
filed
testimony
a
brief
was
not
response
requesting that the Court affirm his decision. (Docket No. 40).
After a careful review of the transcript of the proceedings
before the Bureau of Hearings and Appeals (Docekt No. 12) and
the parties’ arguments before this Court, we conclude that the
Commissioner’s findings are supported by substantial evidence.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)
and
Local
Rule
72,
a
district
court
may
refer
dispositive
motions to a United States magistrate judge for a report and
recommendation. See Alamo Rodriguez v. Pfizer Pharmaceuticals,
Civil No. 09-2178 (JAG)
3
Inc., 286 F. Supp. 2d 144, 146 (D.P.R. 2003). The adversely
affected party may “contest the [m]agistrate [j]udge’s report
and
recommendation
being
served’
with
by
a
filing
copy
objections
of
the
‘within
order.”
ten
United
days
of
States
v.
Mercado Pagan, 286 F. Supp. 2d 231, 233 (D.P.R. 2003) (citing 28
U.S.C.
§
636(b)(1)).
If
objections
district judge shall “make a
de novo
are
timely
filed,
the
determination of those
portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation
to which [an] objection is made.” Rivera-De-Leon v. Maxon Eng’g
Servs., 283 F. Supp. 2d 550, 555 (D.P.R. 2003). It is well
settled that a district court can “accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate.” Alamo Rodriguez, 286 F. Supp. 2d at 146 (citing
Templeman v. Chris Craft Corp., 770 F.2d 245, 247 (1st Cir.
1985)). However, if the affected party fails to timely file
objections, the district court can assume that they have agreed
to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. Id.
ANALYSIS
To establish entitlement to benefits, Plaintiff bears the
burden of proving that he became disabled within the meaning of
the Act.
See, e.g., Deblois v. Secretary of HHS, 686 F.2d 76,
79 (1st Cir. 1982). Plaintiff may be considered disabled within
the meaning of the Act only if he is unable to perform any
substantial gainful work because of a medical condition that can
Civil No. 09-2178 (JAG)
4
be expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12
months.
See
42
U.S.C.
§§
416(i)(1),
423(d)(1).
Plaintiff’s
impairment must be so severe as to prevent him from working, not
only
in
his
usual
occupation,
but
in
any
other
substantial
gainful work considering his age, education, training, and work
experience. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A). Evidence of a physical
impairment cannot suffice for an award of disability insurance
benefits; Plaintiff must also be precluded from engaging in any
substantial gainful activity by reason of such impairment.
See,
e.g., McDonald v. Secretary of HHS, 795 F.2d 1118, 1120 (1st
Cir. 1986).
Moreover, Plaintiff's complaints cannot provide the
basis of entitlement when they are not supported by medical
evidence.
Avery v. Secretary of HHS, 797 F.2d 19, 20-21 (1st
Cir. 1986).
The findings of fact made by the Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”) “are conclusive when supported by substantial evidence,
42
U.S.C.
ignoring
§
405(g),
evidence,
are
misapplying
entrusted to experts.”
Cir. 1999).
but
not
conclusive
the
law,
or
when
derived
judging
by
matters
Nguyen v. Chater, 172 F.3d 31, 35 (1st
The resolution of conflicts in the evidence and the
ultimate determination of disability are for the ALJ, not the
courts.
See Rodriguez v. Secretary of HHS, 647 F.2d 218, 222
(1st Cir. 1981).
Civil No. 09-2178 (JAG)
5
After a careful de novo review of the record, the Court
finds that the Magistrate Judge did not err in concluding that
that substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s decision.
That is, that Plaintiff is not disabled and that he has not met
his burden of proving otherwise. A review of the transcript
shows that there is substantial evidence, i.e. reports from the
consultative psychiatrist and neurologist, to support a finding
regarding that fact that Plaintiff’s mental condition is not
disabling. The ALJ’s finding of fact in this regard is supported
by substantial evidence and is, therefore, conclusive. It was
the ALJ’s prerogative to solve the conflict between the report
filed by the consultative physicians and the report prepared by
Plaintiff’s psychiatrist and Plaintiff’s own testimony. It was
also
the
ALJ’s
prerogative
to
gage
Plaintiff’s
credibility
during his testimony.
The ALJ also had substantial evidence before him to support
a finding that Plaintiff is not physically disabled due to his
back pain. Spinal Xrays reveal narrow disc spaces and severe
narrowing at certain levels, loss of the vertebral body height
and presence of osteophytes or bone spurs. However, the Xrays
also
reveal
that
the
vertebral
bodies
are
intact,
normally
aligned and that no acute pathology is present. The record also
shows that Plaintiff has not received any medical treatment for
his back since 2002, when he was treated for a herniated disc.
Civil No. 09-2178 (JAG)
6
The Court finds that the ALJ was correct in concluding that the
Xrays do not reveal a physical disability that would prevent
Plaintiff from engaging in gainful work. Even when his symptoms
are
considered
pain,,
the
severe
evidence
and
he
simply
might
does
be
not
experiencing
support
a
constant
finding
of
complete disability.
CONSLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby ADOPTS
the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety
and, accordingly, GRANTS the Commissioner’s Motion Requesting an
Order Affirming the Final Decision. (Docket No. 22). Judgment
dismissing the case shall be entered.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 12th day of April, 2011.
S/ Jay A. Garcia-Gregory
JAY A. GARCIA-GREGORY
United States 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?