Lopez-Montalvo
Filing
13
OPINION AND ORDER affirming administrative decision. Signed by Judge Salvador E. Casellas on 7/6/11.(PR)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
1
2
3
4
5
MARIA DEL CARMEN LOPEZMONTALVO,
Plaintiff,
6
7
v.
Civil No. 10-1524 (SEC)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
8
Defendant.
9
OPINION and ORDER
10
11
Plaintiff Maria del Carmen Lopez-Montalvo brought this action under § 205(g) of the
12
Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Lopez-Montalvo seeks review of the Commissioner
13
of Social Security’s (the “Commissioner”) denial of her application for disability benefits.
14
Docket # 1. Lopez-Montalvo filed a memorandum of law supporting her request (Docket # 11),
15
which the Commissioner opposes (Docket # 12). For the reasons set forth below, the
16
Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.
17
Procedural Background
18
Lopez-Montalvo filed a claim for disability benefits, which was denied originally and
19
upon reconsideration. Tr. 25. She then sought review by an administrative law judge (“ALJ”).
20
Id. At the hearing, the ALJ heard testimony from Lopez-Montalvo and a Vocational Expert
21
(“VE”). Tr. 355-86. The ALJ found that she was not disabled through the date of his decision
22
(February 29, 2008). Tr. 25-31.1 The Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ’s opinion
23
the final decision of the Commissioner subject to judicial review. Tr. 4-7.
24
1
25
26
Lopez-Montalvo’s insurance period ran through December 31, 2009. Tr. 25. She was
subsequently adjudged disabled as of March 1, 2008, and became entitled to benefits in August, 2008.
See Tr. 77-81. The only issue before the Court, however, is whether Lopez-Montalvo was disabled up
to the date of the ALJ’s decision. See Docket # 11.
1
CIVIL NO. 10-1524 (SEC)
Page 2
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
Standard of Review
Section 405(g) provides that findings of the Commissioner “as to any fact, if supported
by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). “[S]ubstantial evidence”
must be “more than a mere scintilla,” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (internal
quotation marks omitted), but “if a reasonable mind, reviewing the evidence in the record as a
whole, could accept it as adequate to support [the Commissioner’s] conclusion,” then the district
court must uphold the Commissioner’s findings. Rodriguez v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
647 F.2d 218, 222 (1st Cir. 1981). Accordingly, even if the record could justify a different
conclusion, the Commissioner’s findings must be affirmed if supported by substantial evidence.
Evangelista v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 826 F.2d 136, 144 (1st Cir. 1987).
On the other hand, the Commissioner has a duty to examine the medical evidence
presented. Rodriguez, 647 F.2d at 222; see Beyene v. Astrue, 739 F. Supp. 2d 77, 83 (D. Mass.
2010). Thus, remand to the Commissioner is appropriate, with instructions to expand the record,
where the Commissioner’s conclusion “is not readily verifiable on the record as it stands.”
Manso-Pizarro v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 76 F.3d 15, 19 (1st Cir. 1996); see also
Figueroa-Rodriguez v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 845 F.2d 370, 374 (1st Cir. 1988)
(ordering remand where “neither the ALJ nor the Appeals Council adequately explained their
reasons for rejecting” a medical professional’s assessment).
In assessing whether there is substantial evidence to support the Commissioner’s
findings, the District Court has a duty “to make a searching investigation of the record.” Gold
v. Sec’y of Health, Educ., & Welfare, 463 F.2d 38, 43 (2d Cir. 1972) (internal quotation marks
omitted) (quoting Miracle v. Celebrezze, 351 F.2d 361, 382-83 (6th Cir. 1965)). The Court may
not consider exclusively the evidence that would support the Commissioner’s conclusions, but
instead has a duty to “canvass[] the whole record” and to look also at “the evidence opposed to”
1
CIVIL NO. 10-1524 (SEC)
Page 3
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
the Commissioner’s view. See Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 488 (1951)
(expounding the “substantial evidence on the whole record” standard as applied to review of an
NLRB decision); Diaz v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 791 F. Supp. 905, 912 (D.P.R.
1992) (quoting Universal Camera to note that district courts must also look at evidence that
detracts from the ALJ’s conclusions). The Court must not, however, substitute its own judgment
for that of the ALJ. Fraga v. Bowen, 810 F.2d 1296, 1302 (5th Cir. 1987). Moreover, it is the
claimant who has the burden of establishing that he is disabled. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S.
137, 146 n.5 (1987); Deblois v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 686 F.2d 76, 79 (1st Cir.
1982).
Factual Background
12
Lopez-Montalvo was 52 years old at the alleged onset of her disability. Tr. 358-59. She
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
had previously worked as a sewing machine operator. Tr. 380. Lopez-Montalvo had suffered
from pain on her left shoulder since 2001. See Tr. 190. On May 5, 2004, she was treated at the
State Insurance Fund following a workplace injury and was diagnosed with a left shoulder
rotator cuff tear. Tr. 88, 192. She was referred to Dr. Perez-Cardona, who operated on the
shoulder three months later, with “excellent postoperative results.” Tr. 190-92. She has not
worked since. Tr. 363-65. After the surgery, she received physical therapy. Tr. 191. LopezMontalvo is still unable to reach overhead with her left arm, but her motor abilities are
otherwise normal. See Tr. 202. She occasionally takes nonprescription medication “when the
pain is too much.” Tr. 374-75. But she has not had to visit the hospital on account of her pain.
Id.
In addition to her physical treatment, Lopez-Montalvo has received treatment for an
emotional condition at the Ponce School of Medicine Behavioral Health Center in Mayagüez.
Tr. 323-47. She takes Fluoxetine 20mg and Haldol 5mg for her depression, and Xanax 1mg to
1
CIVIL NO. 10-1524 (SEC)
Page 4
2
3
4
5
6
sleep. Tr. 348. Yet, her depression is described as “mild” or “moderate.” E.g., Tr. 341 and 346.
Her GAF, assessed at 65%, corresponds to mild symptoms. Tr. 347; see American Psychiatric
Ass’n, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 34 (4th ed. text rev. 2000)
(hereinafter DSM IV).
Applicable law and analysis
7
The ALJ, based on the VE’s testimony, found that Lopez-Montalvo was capable of
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
performing her past relevant work as a sewing machine operator and was therefore not disabled.
Tr. 30-31.2 Lopez-Montalvo argues that the ALJ did not give weight to the VE’s opinion that
a person with reduced attention and concentration would be limited in performing such work.
See Docket # 11. She additionally argues that the hypotheticals posed by the ALJ to the VE did
not accurately reflect her medical condition. The Commissioner replies that, as the premises for
the hypotheticals were backed up by substantial evidence, the ALJ correctly relied on the VE’s
conclusion that Lopez-Montalvo was capable of performing her past relevant work. See Docket
# 12.
To prevail on her disability claim, a claimant must prove that she suffered from a “severe
impairment” during the relevant period. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c); see also Bianchi v. Sec’y
of Health & Human Servs., 764 F.2d 44, 45 (1st Cir. 1985).
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2
The ALJ makes a sequential, five-step analysis of the claimant’s condition in rendering a
decision. See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n.5 (1987). The claimant bears the burden during
the first four steps, and if the ALJ determines that she is not disabled at any one of those steps, the
inquiry ends. Id. Here, the ALJ determined that Lopez-Montalvo was not disabled at step four, because
her condition was not severe enough to preclude her from performing her past relevant work. See
Tr. 30; Bowen, 482 U.S. at 146 n.5. Thus, the Court need not consider Lopez-Montalvo’s argument,
relevant only to step five, about her capacity to perform other work in the national economy. See
Docket # 11 at p. 7. In any case, the Court finds the argument baffling, as the ALJ seems to have found
for her in this respect, given the ALJ’s comment that he was “not totally persuaded by state agency
physicians’ opinions that she can do other work.” Tr. 30 (emphasis added).
1
CIVIL NO. 10-1524 (SEC)
Page 5
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
The ALJ is the one who must determine credibility and weigh contrasting evidence, and
the ALJ’s findings are not conclusive only “when derived by ignoring evidence, misapplying
the law, or judging matters entrusted to experts.” Nguyen v. Charter, 172 F.3d 31, 35 (1st Cir.
1999); see Rodriguez v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 647 F.2d 218, 222-23 (1st Cir. 1981).
The ALJ may rely on a VE’s opinion in rendering a decision. See Arocho v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., 670 F.2d 374, 375 (1st Cir. 1982). But hypotheticals posed to the VE
must accurately reflect the claimant’s condition, and the premises for the hypothetical questions
must be based on substantial medical evidence before the ALJ. See id. If substantial evidence
does support the premises for the hypotheticals, then the VE’s answers constitute substantial
evidence to back up the ALJ’s decision. Cf. Keating v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 848
F.2d 271, 274-76 (1st Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (finding that VE’s answer to hypothetical which
mirrored claimant’s condition supported ALJ’s decision); Cooper v. Sullivan, 880 F.2d 1152,
1158 n.13 (9th Cir. 1989) (emphasis added) (“A vocational expert’s testimony can not constitute
substantial evidence to support an ALJ’s determination as to a claimant’s disability status unless
it accurately reflects all of the claimant’s limitations, including pain.”), quoted with approval
in Maldonado v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 972 F.2d 337 (Table), No. 91-2300, 1992
WL 197372 at *5 (1st Cir. Aug. 18, 1992) (per curiam) (citing the Cooper case as Cooper v.
Bowen); Garay v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 46 F.3d 1114 (Table), No. 94-1515, 1995
WL 54077 at *1 (1st Cir. Feb. 10, 1995) (per curiam) (“If the premises are supported by
substantial evidence in the record, then the vocational expert’s responses constitute substantial
evidence to support the ALJ’s vocational determination that claimant’s impairment [does] not
preclude his former work.”).
Here, the ALJ posed a series of six hypotheticals to the VE. He began with a description
of a person of Lopez-Montalvo’s age, education, training, and work experience, limited to light
1
CIVIL NO. 10-1524 (SEC)
Page 6
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
physical effort. He then added details at each stage to mirror Lopez-Montalvo’s condition. See
Tr. 381-85. At stage two, the ALJ added the left shoulder surgery and inability to reach
overhead with her left arm. The ALJ asked the VE whether such a person could work as a
sewing machine operator, and the VE replied in the affirmative. Tr. 381-82. Lopez-Montalvo
relies on the VE’s answer to the third hypothetical: the VE responded that a person with limited
attention and concentration due to left shoulder pain of moderate to severe intensity would be
limited in performing Lopez-Montalvo’s past relevant work. See Tr. 382-83.
Yet, the ALJ asked a follow-up question as his fourth hypothetical: could a person
perform the work if her pain was mild to moderate and could be controlled by taking
nonprescription medication, such as Panadol? Tr. 383. The VE’s answer was yes. Id. This
description is supported by the medical evidence in the record and by Lopez-Montalvo’s own
testimony; according to the medical record, she was not taking any prescription pain medication.
See Tr. 348. And, at the hearing, she testified that she took Panadol or other nonprescription
drugs “when the pain [was] too much,” but had not been to the hospital on account of her pain.
See Tr. 375. Nor had she required prescription-strength medication for her pain after the
surgery, except for one occasion. See id. Therefore, substantial evidence supports the premises
of the ALJ’s hypothetical that the shoulder pain was mild to moderate and controllable. See
Rodriguez, 647 F.2d at 222 (“[The Court] must uphold the [ALJ’s] findings . . . if a reasonable
mind, reviewing the evidence in the record as a whole, could accept it as adequate to support
his conclusion.”).
At the fifth hypothetical, the ALJ added details of Lopez-Montalvo’s emotional condition
based primarily on a report by Dr. Rodriguez Robles, a consulting psychiatrist who evaluated
Lopez-Montalvo but did not treat her. See Tr. 279-82, 383-84. Lopez-Montalvo contends that
the ALJ’s description in the hypothetical of a person whose attention and concentration are “a
1
CIVIL NO. 10-1524 (SEC)
Page 7
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
bit limited[,] especially in complex situations” and who is “able to pay attention and
concentration in regular day-to-day activities” deviates from Dr. Rodriguez Robles’s report.
Even if this were true, however, there is other medical evidence to support the ALJ’s
characterization. See Rodriguez, 647 F.2d at 222 (“[T]he resolution of conflicts in the evidence
. . . is for [the ALJ], not for the doctors or for the courts.”). As stated above, the reports from
the Behavioral Center, where Lopez-Montalvo had received treatment, describe her condition
as mild to moderate. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (stating that ALJ should generally give
more weight to opinion of treating source than to opinion of nontreating source). Her GAF score
of 65% corresponds to only a mild impairment in everyday activities. See DSM IV 34.
Moreover, for his sixth and last hypothetical the ALJ explicitly relied on the Behavioral Center
report. See 384-85. The VE once again stated at that point that the hypothetical person could
perform Lopez-Montalvo’s past relevant work. Id.
On the above-stated grounds, the Court concludes that substantial evidence supports the
premises of the ALJ’s hypotheticals. Therefore, his decision relying on the VE’s answers to
them is also supported by substantial evidence. See Garay, 1995 WL 54077 at *1; cf. Arocho,
670 F.2d at 375. The ALJ’s finding that Lopez-Montalvo was not disabled as of the date of his
decision is affirmed.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 6th day of July, 2011.
s/ SALVADOR E. CASELLAS
Salvador E. Casellas
U.S. Senior 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?