Lopez-Merrero v. SHHS ( 1994 )


Menu:
  • USCA1 Opinion









    May 31, 1994
    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
    ____________________


    No. 93-2092

    LAURA E. LOPEZ-MERRERO,

    Plaintiff, Appellant,

    v.

    SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

    Defendant, Appellee.


    ____________________

    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO


    [Hon. Carmen Consuelo Cerezo, U.S. District Judge]
    ___________________

    ____________________

    Before

    Selya, Cyr and Stahl,
    Circuit Judges.
    ______________

    ____________________

    Raymond Rivera Esteves and Juan A. Hernandez Rivera on brief for
    ______________________ _________________________
    appellant.
    Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Maria Hortensia Rios,
    ______________ ______________________
    Assistant United States Attorney, and Paul Germanotta, Assistant
    ________________
    Regional Counsel, Department of Health and Human Services, on brief
    for appellee.


    ____________________


    ____________________


















    Per Curiam. Claimant Laura E. Lopez-Marrero
    ____________

    appeals from the judgment of the district court which

    affirmed the decision of the Secretary of Health and Human

    Services that claimant was not entitled to Social Security

    disability benefits.

    I. BACKGROUND
    _ __________

    Claimant filed an application for Social Security

    disability benefits on June 6, 1989. She alleged an onset

    date of October 15, 1988. As disabilities she listed her

    nerves and her back. She related her impairments to two

    falls at work. An administrative law judge (ALJ) held a

    hearing. Claimant testified concerning her most recent work.

    First, she worked in a pharmaceutical factory where she

    manually checked and counted the gloves made there. She

    would alternate between sitting and standing and only had to

    carry "little" things. Next, she was employed as an office

    worker; she took notes and answered the phone.

    Claimant stated that she lives with her husband.

    After the accidents, she suffered pain in her left leg, left

    hip, left ankle and right hand. She uses a cane because of

    the pain in her legs. She visits a doctor when in pain and

    takes Motrin. She can sit and stand for twenty minutes at a

    time but has problems walking. She can lift light objects.

    She would like to work but cannot because of the problems she

    has with her memory due to her nerves and because of the pain



















    in her lower back, coccidial area and left hip. She

    described her pain as strong although sometimes the medicine

    helps. As for her nerves, she feels desperate and restless.

    The ALJ first determined that claimant's

    impairments did not meet the listings. Nonetheless, he found

    that there existed some limitations in her work-related

    activities due to both her exertional and non-exertional

    conditions. As for claimant's mental impairment, the ALJ

    concluded that claimant was only precluded from performing

    complex tasks due to some deterioration in her ability to

    sustain concentration. Nonetheless, she retained the

    capacity to perform simple tasks that were routine and

    repetitive in nature. He rejected the level of deterioration

    described by claimant, finding that, under Avery v. Secretary
    _____ _________

    of Health and Human Services, 797 F.2d 19 (1st Cir. 1986),
    _____________________________

    she was only somewhat limited in social functioning and daily

    activities.

    In relation to her neurological condition, the ALJ

    found that she suffered from lumbar strain and had a history

    of trauma to her left hip, left ankle and right hand. Under

    Avery, the ALJ credited claimant's complaints of pain only to
    _____

    the extent that she was precluded from doing heavy lifting

    and carrying and from standing or walking for prolonged

    periods of time. Thus, he concluded, she could perform her

    past work.



    -3-















    On appeal, claimant argues that the ALJ's

    determinations regarding her pain were not substantially

    supported by the record. Further, claimant asserts, the ALJ

    erred by translating, without the aid of a vocational expert,

    the medical evidence of claimant's physical impairments into

    functional limitations on her ability to perform her past

    work. As for her mental condition, claimant asserts that the

    ALJ's decision was not supported by substantial evidence when

    viewed in the context of the record as a whole.

    Specifically, claimant points to the findings concerning

    restrictions in her ability to cope with the stresses of work

    in general.

    A. Physical Impairment
    ___________________

    The x-ray reports, which found partial

    sacralization of the L-5 disc and narrowing of the L-5-S-1

    disc space, do provide evidence of "a clinically determinable

    medical impairment that can reasonably be expected to produce

    the pain alleged." See Avery, 797 F.2d at 21. However,
    ___ _____

    there also was evidence to support the ALJ's decision not to

    credit claimant's claims of totally disabling pain.

    For example, in November 1989, claimant underwent a

    neurological evaluation. See Exhibit 15. Although
    ___

    claimant's complaints included constant pain, she had normal

    tone, no atrophy and a strength rating of 4 out of 5. There

    was no muscle spasm and no deformity. The diagnosis was



    -4-















    lumbar strain. At another examination in October 1990, see
    ___

    Exhibit 22, claimant complained of mild lower back pain which

    was alleviated with Motrin. Despite the presence of some

    muscle spasm and a limited range of motion of the lumbar

    spine, there was no muscle weakness or atrophy and no sensory

    deficit; claimant's gait was normal. The diagnosis was a

    back condition by history, with no evidence of radiculapathy.

    Contrary to claimant's argument, the ALJ did not

    impermissibly translate medical data into functional

    limitations. Rather, the record contained two residual

    functional capacity (RFC) forms. In December 1989, a

    physician opined that, based on the medical records, claimant

    had no exertional, postural or other limitations. In a
    __

    November 1990 RFC assessment, it was noted that claimant

    could occasionally lift and carry up to 50 pounds and could

    frequently lift and carry 25 pounds. She could stand, sit

    and walk for up to six hours each per day.

    B. Mental Condition
    ________________

    Claimant's mental impairment presents a more

    complicated picture but, again, there is evidence to support

    the Secretary's position. A psychiatric examination

    conducted in November 1989, see Exhibit 16, revealed that
    ___

    claimant was logical, coherent, relevant and oriented. She

    did not present any perceptual dysfunctions. Although she

    appeared anxious and depressed, her attention span was



    -5-















    conserved and her ability to concentrate was adequate. She

    was described as capable of judging reality and the

    consequences of her acts.

    In July 1990, claimant also was described as

    coherent, relevant, logical and cooperative; there were no

    observable thought disorders. See Exhibit 18. Her affect
    ___

    was appropriate and her mood normal. She reported delusions,

    but the examiner described them as hysterical in nature. Her

    memory was conserved. In addition, claimant took the MMPI.

    The examiner described the results as "exaggerated." That

    is, claimant "reported symptoms of such severe disturbance

    that her profile fell outside the maximum limits that the

    profile was designed to measure." As a result, "[s]he would

    have been unlikely to be unable [sic] to take the test

    properly if she were as severely disturbed as she was

    claiming, and her behavior during the clinical part of the

    examination was in sharp contrast with her claims of

    disturbance." The diagnoses were mild dysthymia and a

    personality disorder with dependent and hysterical features.

    Three non-examining doctors completed mental RFC

    assessments. In December 1989, claimant was rated as not

    significantly limited in understanding, remembering and

    carrying out short, simple instructions. Also not

    significantly limited were her abilities to sustain an

    ordinary routine without supervision, to make simple work-



    -6-















    related decisions, to relate to co-workers, to maintain

    socially appropriate behavior and to handle changes in the

    work environment. As for maintaining concentration for

    extended periods of time, performing within a regular

    schedule, and being able to complete a normal work-week

    without interruptions from psychologically-based symptoms,

    claimant was moderately limited. She was not "markedly

    limited" in any areas. The conclusion was that claimant was

    capable of performing simple tasks on a sustained basis.

    The RFC assessment completed in August 1990

    essentially reached the same results. Even with moderate

    limits on her abilities to complete a normal work-week, to

    respond appropriately to changes in the work setting, and to

    accept supervision, claimant retained the abilities to cope

    with simple instructions, to perform within a schedule, to

    make simple work-related decisions, to work in proximity to

    others, to sustain an ordinary work routine, to maintain

    regular attendance and to be punctual. The third physician,

    in November 1990, echoed the findings concerning claimant's

    capacity to deal with simple instructions, to work with

    others, to make simple, work-related decisions and to respond

    appropriately to criticism. She was moderately limited in

    dealing with the stresses of work in general -- being able to

    concentrate, maintaining a routine without supervision,





    -7-















    completing a normal work-week and keeping up regular

    attendance.

    In Social Security Ruling (SSR) 85-15, the

    Secretary set out the framework for addressing mental

    impairments in the context of unskilled work. See Ortiz v.
    ___ _____

    Secretary of Health and Human Services, 890 F.2d 520, 526-27
    ______________________________________

    (1st Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (discussing SSR 85-15). Two

    sets of capabilities are necessary for this kind of work.

    First, claimant must be able to understand, remember and

    carry out simple instructions, to respond appropriately to

    co-workers, supervision and normal work situations, and to

    cope with routine changes in the work situation. There is

    substantial evidence, based on the above reports, that

    claimant meets these requirements.

    The second set of capabilities concerns the demands

    of any work environment, regardless of the skill level

    involved. To be able to accommodate a work setting per se,

    according to SSR 85-15, an individual must be capable of

    being punctual, attending work on a consistent basis and

    staying at work for the entire day. The RFC assessments

    uniformly rated claimant as "moderately limited" in these

    spheres of functioning. We have acknowledged that such

    limitations may erode the occupational base "at least

    marginally, and possibly more so." See Ortiz, 890 F.2d at
    ___ _____





    -8-















    527; see also Irlanda Ortiz v. Secretary of Health and Human
    ___ ____ _____________ _____________________________

    Services, 955 F.2d 765, 770 (1st Cir. 1991) (per curiam).
    ________

    In this case, we believe that there is substantial

    record evidence to support the Secretary's decision that

    claimant's dysthymia did not significantly affect her ability
    _____________

    to successfully negotiate the work setting. In this regard,

    we note that objective medical evidence -- the MMPI --

    indicates that claimant may be exaggerating her symptomology.

    III. CONCLUSION
    ___ __________

    We conclude that claimant has not met her burden of

    establishing that her impairments precluded her from

    performing her past work. See Gray v. Heckler, 760 F.2d 369,
    ___ ____ _______

    371 (1st Cir. 1985) (per curiam). "We must uphold the

    Secretary's findings . . . if a reasonable mind, reviewing

    the evidence in the record as a whole, could accept it as

    adequate to support [the Secretary's] decision." Rodriguez
    _________

    v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 647 F.2d 218, 222
    ______________________________________

    (1st Cir. 1981). Although the record contains conflicting

    evidence, the resolution of these conflicts is for the

    Secretary, not the courts. See id. Given the medical
    ___ ___

    reports described above, there was substantial evidence in

    the record as a whole to support the Secretary's conclusion.

    The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
    ________







    -9-