-
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT No. 97-2088 MARIA M. SANTIAGO, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant,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, Circuit Judge, Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge, and Boudin, Circuit Judge. Melba N. Rivera-Camacho and Melba N. Rivera Camacho & Assocs. on brief for appellant. Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Lillian Mendoza-Torro, Assistant U.S. Attorney, and Wayne G. Lewis, Assistant Regional Counsel, Social Security Administration, on brief for appellee. March 18, 1998 Per Curiam. Claimant Maria Santiago appeals a district court judgment that affirmed a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying claimant's application for disability benefits. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the parties' briefs on appeal. We conclude that the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence and uninfected by legal error. We add the following comments. 1. Claimant asserts, without citation to the record or case law, that she proved that she is unable to perform her past relevant work as a housekeeper. We disagree. The record discloses that this work required claimant to perform only simple, routine tasks for up to 4-5 hours, and that both of the Commissioner's consulting psychologists found claimant's ability to perform such tasks was not significantly limited. Although claimant was represented by counsel at her administrative hearing, she never explained how her impairments prevented her from performing her past work. Thus, she failed to meet her burden at step four. See, e.g., Santiago v. Secretary of Health and Human Services,
944 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 1991)(per curiam); Gray v. Heckler,
790 F.2d 369, 372, 375 (1st Cir. 1985)(per curiam); Gonzalez Perez v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 572 F2d 886, 888 (1st Cir. 1978). 2. Claimant next says that the administrative law judge (ALJ) should have evaluated her mental impairment under the listing for Somatoform Disorders (12.07), not under the listing for Affective Disorders (12.04). She maintains that the ALJ applied the wrong listing and, in so doing, impermissibly substituted his own lay opinion on the nature of claimant's mental impairment for the opinion of his medical advisor, Dr. Perez Arzola. Claimant errs on both counts. Dr. Perez Arzola's testimony in no way established the presence of a somatoform disorder, and there was ample evidence to support the ALJ's use of the listing governing affective disorders. 3. Vocational expert testimony was not required where claimant failed to meet her burden at step four and the Commissioner procured expert assessments of claimant's residual functional capacity. Claimant's remaining contentions on appeal are meritless. Affirmed.
Document Info
Docket Number: 97-2088
Filed Date: 3/20/1998
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021