Santos-Figueroa v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
16
OPINION AND ORDER - Judgment to be entered accordingly. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Camille L. Velez-Rive on 11/27/12.(ljt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
WANDA I. SANTOS-FIGUEROA,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL NO. 11-1973 (CVR)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Wanda I. Santos-Figueroa (hereafter plaintiff “Santos-Figueroa”) filed this
action for judicial review of the final decision of the defendant, the Commissioner of Social
Security (hereafter “Commissioner”), denying the application for disability benefits upon
a request for a disability determination and ensuing benefits. (Docket No. 1). Plaintiff
Santos-Figueroa requests the administrative determination denying disability be reversed
or it be remanded for re-adjudication due to lack of substantial evidence in support of the
determination and findings of the Commissioner that she was not under disability.1
On December 19, 2011, the Commissioner answered the Complaint and filed copy
of the administrative record. (Docket Nos. 10 and 11). On June 13, 2012, plaintiff SantosFigueroa, through her legal representative Atty. Pedro G. Cruz-Sánchez, filed a
memorandum of law arguing the errors at the administrative proceedings and how the
evidence of record and the absence of a vocational expert’s testimony failed to fulfill the
burden of proof that would support the Commissioner’s finding that plaintiff was not
1
U.S.C. Sec. 405(g) provides for judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner.
“... [t]he court shall have power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript
of the record, a judgment without remanding the cause for rehearing”. Section 205(g).
Wanda I. Santos-Figueroa v. Commissioner of S.S.
Opinion and Order
Civil No. 11-1973 (CVR)
Page No. 2
disabled. (Docket No. 12). The Court referred the case to a Magistrate Judge for all further
proceedings, including the entry of judgment. (Docket Nos. 6 and 7).
The Commissioner filed the memorandum of law wherein it is requested the matter
be remanded for re-adjudication for the administrative decision did not contain the
required analysis of the medical opinion of record. (Docket No. 15).
BACKGROUND
On August 13, 2007, plaintiff filed an application for a period of disability which was
denied initially and upon reconsideration. Thereafter, the required administrative hearing
was held on January 21, 2010 before Hon. José R. Gautier, Administrative Law Judge
(hereafter “ALJ”).
The ALJ found plaintiff Santos-Figueroa was not disabled and the
Appeals Council denied the request for review.
ADMINISTRATIVE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND RECORD
Plaintiff Santos-Figueroa claimed disability due to exertional and non-exertional
conditions which include cognitive limitations, depression, diabetes mellitus, diabetes
neuropathy, high blood pressure, radiculopathy, sensory polyneuropathy, lumbar muscle
spasms, cervical and lumbar spondylosis. She performed work as a school bus driver,
machine operator and toll collector since alleged onset date of disability of October 6, 2005.
On February 10, 2011, the ALJ issued an opinion determining Santos-Figueroa was
not under disability for, although unable to perform her past relevant work, she retained
the residual functional capacity to perform light kind of work, simple repetitive tasks with
no more than incidental contact with the general public and unskilled in mental functions.
(Docket No. 10, Transcript, pp. 17-26).
Wanda I. Santos-Figueroa v. Commissioner of S.S.
Opinion and Order
Civil No. 11-1973 (CVR)
Page No. 3
The ALJ also found that the mental condition, although moderate, only imposed
minimal limitations in the ability to sustain work routine. Thus, even without a medical or
vocational expert at the administrative hearing held on January 21, 2010, the ALJ
concluded in his written opinion there were significant numbers of jobs available in the
national economy of light level of exertion that Santos-Figueroa could perform. (Id., pp.
30-41).2
LEGAL ANALYSIS
The Court’s review is limited to determine whether the ALJ deployed the proper legal
standards and found facts upon the proper quantum of evidence. See Manso-Pizarro v.
Secretary of Health and Human Services, 76 F.3d 15, 16 (1st Cir. 1996). The ALJ’s findings
of fact are conclusive when supported by substantial evidence, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), but are
not conclusive when derived by ignoring evidence, misapplying the law, or judging matters
entrusted to experts. Nguyen v. Chater, 172 F.3d 31, 35 (1st Cir. 1999); Da Rosa v. Secretary
of Health and Human Services, 803 F.2d 24, 26 (1st Cir. 1986); Ortiz v. Secretary of Health
and Human Services, 955 F.2d 765, 769 (1st Cir. 1991).
To review the final decision of the Commissioner courts must determine if the
evidence of record meets the substantial evidence criteria. Substantial evidence is "more
than a mere scintilla and such, as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support
a conclusion". Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971), quoting Consolidated Edison Co.
v. N.L.R.B., 305 U.S. 197 (1938). The findings of the Commissioner as to any fact are
2
The ALJ concluded plaintiff suffered from severe impairments as to diabetes mellitus, diabetes neuropathy,
high blood pressure, radiculopathy, sensory polyneuropathy, lumbar muscle spasm, cervical and lumbar spondylosis. (Id.,
p. 19).
Wanda I. Santos-Figueroa v. Commissioner of S.S.
Opinion and Order
Civil No. 11-1973 (CVR)
Page No. 4
conclusive, if supported by the above stated substantial evidence.3 The court would set
aside a denial of benefits only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or if it is based
on a legal error. See Seavey v. Barnhart, 276 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2001); Rodríguez, 647 F.2d
at 222.
The Commissioner has recognized the ALJ’s decision before the Court does not
present the required analysis of the medical opinions of record nor does it explain how
much weight was afforded to each medical record. It is also acknowledged the report of the
treating physician was mischaracterized and the ALJ did not address the physician’s
findings of marked or extreme limitations in multiple areas. As such, the Commissioner
requests the matter be remanded as appropriate relief, when an ALJ has ignored evidence,
misapplied the law or judged matters entrusted to experts. Nguyen, 172 F3d at 35.
Plaintiff Santos-Figueroa also requested that, in the alternative to vacating the
decision of the Commissioner, the case be remanded with instructions to evaluate the whole
record and produce a decision consistent with applicable law, rulings and regulations.
In view of the foregoing, this Magistrate Judge agrees to remand the instant case for
proper evaluation of the record as a whole, insofar as plaintiff’s impairments, medical
evidence, and proper assessment of exertional and non-exertional limitations as to her
physical and mental conditions. It is further remanded for full and proper evaluation of the
medical record and application of the proper administrative regulations.
3
Falu v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 703 F. 2d 24 (1st Cir. 1983).
Wanda I. Santos-Figueroa v. Commissioner of S.S.
Opinion and Order
Civil No. 11-1973 (CVR)
Page No. 5
CONCLUSION
In view of the above, the instant case is REMANDED. Judgment to be entered
accordingly.
IT SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, on this 27th day of November of 2012.
S/CAMILLE L. VELEZ-RIVE
CAMILLE L. VELEZ RIVE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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?