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