Rivera-Prieto v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 16

ORDER AFFIRMING Commissioner's decision. Signed by Judge Gustavo A. Gelpi on 2/17/12. (AH)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

2
3

MAIRA RIVERA PRIETO,

4

Plaintiff,

5

v.

6
7

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,

8

Defendant.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Civil No. 11-1785 (GAG)

ORDER
The court hereby AFFIRMS the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying
plaintiff disability benefits. In doing so, the undersigned has reviewed and considered the
administrative record below, as well as the parties’ memoranda (Docket Nos. 13 & 15).
Plaintiff first contends that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) below erred by not giving
controlling weight to Drs. Jimenez and Vazquez’s reports pertaining to her mental condition. The
ALJ, while doing so, however gave more weight to the assessments of medical consultant Elvira
Giambartolomei, who personally evaluated her on April 7, 2008. (Tr. 15-16.) The ALJ further gave
his reasons for giving Dr. Giambartolomei controlling weight. This was well within the ALJ’s
province, i.e., weighing the evidence. Rodriguez v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 647 F.2d
218, 222 (1st Cir. 1981). More so, an ALJ need not give, as here, a treating physician’s opinion
controlling weight, if the reasons for doing so are spelled out in the record. See Shaw v. Sec’y of
Health and Human Servs., 25 F.3d 1037, 1994 WL 251000 *3-4 (1st Cir. 1994).
Plaintiff next contends it was error by the ALJ to reject her allegations of numbness in her
hands. Here, the ALJ gave greater weight to the opinions of Drs. German Malaret and Murbank.
(Tr. 14-15.) This was also within the ALJ’s province. See Rodriguez, supra.
Finally, plaintiff alleges that the ALJ based his conclusion of no disability on his own
medical and vocational opinion. The record, however, belies this assertion. The ALJ determined
plaintiff’s RFC based on the medical evidence that was given controlling weight. More so,

Civil No. 11-1785 (GAG)
1

questions to the vocational expert were based on such medical evidence of weight.

2

In sum, in the case at bar, the ALJ properly fulfilled his responsibility of weighing the

3

evidence and resolving any conflicts with the same. Seavey v. Barnhart, 276 F.3d 1, 10 (1st Cir.

4

2001). It is the role of this court on appeal to determine only whether the decision below is

5

supported by “substantial evidence” of record (– it is). And, it is not up to his court to substitute its

6

own judgment for that of the ALJ. Lizotte v. Sec’y of Heath and Human Servs., 654 F.2d 127, 128

7

(1st Cir. 1981).

8

SO ORDERED.

In San Juan, Puerto Rico this 17th day of February 2012.
s/Gustavo A. Gelpí
GUSTAVO A. GELPI
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2