Benetti v. Barnhart, No. 05-2890 (1st Cir. 2006)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Not For Publication in West's Federal Reporter Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3 United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 05-2890 PEDRO L. BENETTI, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. JO ANNE BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant, Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Daniel R. Domínguez, U.S. District Judge] Before Selya, Circuit Judge, Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge, and Lipez, Circuit Judge. Ramon H. Rivera-Sanchez on brief for appellant. Jason W. Valencia, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, H.S. Garcia, United States Attorney, and Katherine Gonzales Valentin, Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee. September 6, 2006 Per Curiam. After carefully considering the briefs and record on appeal, we affirm the Commissioner s decision. We review the ALJ s decision under the same standard as the district court to ensure that it was rendered under the proper legal standards and supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Seavey v. Barnhart, 276 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001). We will not consider new evidence not presented to the Commissioner. See Mills v. Apfel, 244 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001). Although the appellant suffered pain, the ALJ could reasonably find that it was less severe than alleged. factors, one provider s report of substantial Among other limitation was contradicted by other providers and reviewers reports of less extreme debility. The record as a whole provided substantial evidence for the ALJ s finding. Avery v. Sec y Health & Human Servs., 797 F.2d 19 (1st Cir. 1986). The ALJ s resolution of evidentiary conflicts must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence, even if contrary results might have been tenable also. Rodriguez Pagan v. Sec y Health & Human Servs., 819 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1987). The appellant s remaining arguments are unavailing. The record contained ample evidence of the appellant s capacities. The ALJ did not interpret raw medical data or substitute his opinion for the professionals . Despite other ambiguities, the vocational expert clearly rendered the opinion that substantial work was -2- available, given the appellant s exertional limitations and need for a sit/stand option. Affirmed. 1st Cir. R. 27(c). -3-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.