Rivera v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 3:2008cv02281 - Document 16 (D.P.R. 2010)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING the Commissioner of Social Security's determination and denying Claimant's petition for relief. Judgment shall enter dismissing 1 Complaint, filed by Juan A Rivera. Signed by Chief Judge Jose A Fuste on 1/8/10.(mrj)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO JUAN A. RIVERA, Claimant, Civil No. 08-2281 (JAF) v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Respondent. OPINION AND ORDER 11 Claimant, Juan A. Rivera, petitions this court under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to review the 12 decision of Respondent, the Commissioner of Social Security ( Commissioner ), denying 13 disability benefits to Claimant (Docket Nos. 1; 14); Commissioner opposes (Docket Nos. 9; 15). 14 I. 15 Factual and Procedural History 16 We derive the following facts from the parties filings (Docket Nos. 1; 9; 14; 15) and the 17 record in this case ( R. ) (Docket No. 6). Claimant, a high-school graduate, was born on 18 October 23, 1953. (R. at 59.) He worked as a computer operator from April 1989 to July 1990 19 and as a sales associate from October 1994 to September 1995, and again from October 1998 20 to February 2004. (R. at 106.) He has also worked as a materials handler. (R. at 136, 431.) 21 Claimant ceased working on February 6, 2004, citing ailments due to herniated vertebral discs, 22 diabetes, major depression, Hepatitis C, fibrosis of the liver, and panic attacks. (R. at 87.) Civil No. 08-2281 (JAF) -2- 1 Claimant applied for disability insurance benefits on July 7, 2004 (R. at 59-62), which 2 Commissioner denied initially on January 25, 2005 (R. at 48), and again on reconsideration on 3 May 15, 2005 (R. at 56). 4 Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) Gilbert Rodríguez to contest Commissioner s determination. 5 (R. at 427-59.) The ALJ issued a decision on October 31, 2007, upholding Commissioner s 6 finding of non-disability. (R. at 14-32.) On May 17, 2007, Claimant appeared with counsel before 7 To reach his decision, the ALJ consulted medical evidence provided by Dr. Henry 8 González, a gastrointestinal specialist; Dr. Angelo Rosado, an endocrinologist; Dr. William 9 Matos, a rheumatologist; Dr. Héctor Rodríguez ( Rodríguez ), Claimant s treating psychiatrist; 10 Dr. Reinaldo Kianes, a consultative psychiatrist; and various medical experts employed by the 11 Puerto Rico State Insurance Fund. (Id.) Claimant visited Rodríguez monthly for psychiatric 12 treatment beginning in January 3, 1997, until April 26, 2006. (R. at 410, 415.) Claimant later 13 resumed his visits in May 2007. (R. at 410.) 14 On August 4, 2004, Rodríguez reported that Claimant s psychiatric symptoms, including 15 mood swings, anxiety attacks, and obsessive-compulsive disorder, began sometime in 1996. 16 (R. at 353-56.) Rodríguez noted that he was capable of traveling alone; manifested an 17 appropriate attitude and behavior; spoke coherently in a normal tone of voice; exhibited no 18 delusions despite his depression and obsessive thoughts; was oriented in the three spheres of 19 person, place and time; possessed adequate attention during the interview; displayed no 20 deterioration in intellect; had adequate insight; benefitted from treatment with Zoloft, an Civil No. 08-2281 (JAF) -3- 1 antidepressant medication; and was capable of handling funds. However, Rodríguez also 2 reported that Claimant lived at home with his parents; had recently attacked his father due to 3 low tolerance for stress; had a sad mood; stated that he had many problems with concentration; 4 rarely ventured outside the house except to attend meetings with Narcotics Anonymous; had 5 experienced panic attacks; and suffered from worsened depression and anxiety due to the failure 6 of his treatment for Hepatitis C. Rodríguez diagnosed Claimant with major depressive disorder, 7 recurrent, severe but without psychotic traits; obsessive compulsive disorder; and unspecified 8 mood disorder. Rodríguez also opined that Claimant s prognosis was poor and that his mood 9 [was] not adequate to engage in sustained activities, and believe[d] that he is totally and 10 permanently disabled both emotionally and physically to engage in daily work activities. 11 On April 13, 2005, Rodríguez submitted to Commissioner his progress notes from 12 Claimant s clinical visits from August 25, 2004, to February 21, 2005, asserting that [n]o 13 positive change has occurred in the patient s condition since 8/25/2004 up to now, and that 14 Claimant is still in a depressive phase and is not able to engage in work functions. (R. at 358- 15 68.) The notes show that Claimant consistently exhibited lethargy, sadness, and depression, but 16 no signs of risk of harm to himself or others. He remained under medication throughout this 17 period, and his progress note on December 15, 2004, indicated that [e]verything s fine. 18 Rodríguez also submitted a Mental Residual Functional Capacity [ RFC ] Assessment 19 on a form published by the Social Security Administration which he had completed on April 6, 20 2005, covering the period from December 1, 2004, through May 15, 2005. (R. at 411-14.) Civil No. 08-2281 (JAF) -4- 1 According to Rodríguez checked boxes, Claimant exhibited moderate limitations in his abilities 2 to understand and remember detailed instructions; carry out detailed instructions; sustain 3 an ordinary routine without special supervision; work in coordination with or proximity to 4 others without being distracted by them; make simple work-related decisions; interact 5 appropriately with the general public; accept instructions and respond appropriately to 6 criticism from supervisors; get along with coworkers or peers without distracting them or 7 exhibiting behavioral extremes; maintain socially appropriate behavior and to adhere to basic 8 standards of neatness and cleanliness; respond appropriately to changes in the work setting; 9 be aware of normal hazards and take appropriate precautions; and set realistic goals or make 10 plans independently of others. Rodríguez also ticked boxes to note that Claimant displayed 11 marked limitations in his abilities to maintain attention and concentration for extended 12 periods; perform activities within a schedule, maintain regular attendance, and be punctual 13 within customary tolerances; complete a normal workday and workweek without interruptions 14 from psychologically based symptoms and to perform at a consistent pace without an 15 unreasonable number and length of rest periods. Furthermore, Rodríguez added in writing that 16 Claimant had a history of mood swings, anxiety that was consistent with obsessive-compulsive 17 disorder, and a worsening emotional condition due to unfavorable outcomes from his treatment 18 for Hepatitis C. Rodríguez ended again with the remark that Claimant was in a state of 19 depression that disable[d] him for any work activity. Lastly, on May 15, 2007, Rodríguez Civil No. 08-2281 (JAF) -5- 1 wrote a letter to certify that Claimant had resumed treatment that day after having foregone 2 treatment since April 26, 2006. (R. at 410.) 3 Kianes, a consultative psychiatrist, made an independent examination of Claimant on 4 September 23, 2004. (R. at 332-34.) Kianes reported that, although Claimant had received 5 ambulatory psychiatric treatment since 1997, Claimant had no history of psychiatric 6 hospitalization. As for daily activities, Kianes observed that Claimant was capable of taking 7 care of personal needs, assisted with household chores, and went shopping, but spent most days 8 at home in bed and had superficial relations with neighbors. As for Claimant s appearance and 9 behavior, Kianes noted that Claimant arrived alone, had normal physical development, 10 possessed good personal hygiene, cleanly dressed, made sporadic eye contact but was 11 cooperative, had no tics in mannerism, possessed normal motor activity and gait, was alert, was 12 in contact with reality, and understood questions addressed to him. Kianes remarked that 13 Claimant produced spontaneous speech with a rapid flow and exhibited an adequate affect, but 14 showed an anxious mood that was occasionally hostile. With respect to Claimant s thoughts, 15 Kianes stated that Claimant exhibited no blocking, flight of ideas, suicidal or homicidal 16 ideation, delusions, phobias, obsessive ideas, ideas of persecution; that Claimant was coherent, 17 relevant, and logical; but that Claimant had to deal with multiple somatic complaints due to 18 various physical conditions. Kianes reported that Claimant did not appear to suffer from 19 perceptual disturbances; was well oriented in the three spheres; had fair judgment and insight; 20 and had preserved recent, past, and remote memory. However, Kianes also observed that Civil No. 08-2281 (JAF) -6- 1 Claimant had difficulty with immediate and short-term memory; could not concentrate on 2 reciting the months of the year; asserted that both grapefruits and oranges are square; claimed 3 to have difficulty with memories when asked the names of five towns; and asserted that he 4 could not perform simple calculations. Kianes diagnosed Claimant with a mood disorder due 5 to Hepatitis C and an adjustment disorder with anxious mood, and remarked that, based on 6 Kianes observations, Claimant was capable of handling funds. 7 In the course of Claimant s application for benefits, doctors employed by the State 8 Insurance Fund also examined Claimant. Dr. Luis Vecchini submitted a report on 9 November 24, 2004, that determined that Claimant exhibited affective disorders, specifically 10 a mood disorder due to his physical condition, diminished concentration, and short-term 11 memory. (R. at 385-98.) Vecchini rated Claimant s functional limitations, finding moderate 12 functional limitations in restriction of activities of daily living, difficulties in maintaining social 13 functioning, and difficulties in maintaining concentration, persistence, or pace; and no 14 limitations in terms of extended episodes of decompensation. Vecchini also appended a 15 Mental RFC Assessment, dated the same day. (R. at 399-402.) Vecchini reported moderate 16 limitation in Claimant s abilities to understand and remember detailed instructions; carry out 17 detailed instructions; maintain attention and concentration for extended periods; perform 18 activities within a schedule, maintain regular attendance, and be punctual within customary 19 tolerances; complete a normal workday and workweek without interruptions from 20 psychologically based symptoms and to perform at a consistent pace without an unreasonable Civil No. 08-2281 (JAF) -7- 1 number and length of rest periods; interact appropriately with the general public; and accept 2 instructions and respond appropriately to criticism from supervisors. Vecchini noted no 3 marked limitations in Claimant. Finally, Vecchini added in written remarks that Claimant 4 exhibited depression & diminished concentration & short term memory; is able to remember 5 & carry out simple instructions but not complex ones; can maintain attention brief intervals; 6 and can interact w/ supervisors. 7 Upon reviewing the record, Dr. Orlando Rebosedo, another consultative physician, 8 opined on November 24, 2004, that neither the overall medical evidence nor the treating 9 physician s opinions supported the alleged intensity of Claimant s condition. (R. at 382.) 10 Rebosedo noted that TP s [sic] own progress notes, as opposed to what he describes in his 11 report failed to support Rodríguez conclusions (Id.) On May 6, 2005, Rebosedo reported, 12 Evidence in file fails supporting [sic] worsening of conds [sic]. Prior forms seems [sic] ready 13 to be adopted. (Id.) 14 The record also includes two vocational expert reports. The first, dated January 19, 15 2005, concluded that Claimant was capable of working as a surveillance system monitor, a 16 school-bus monitor, and a call-out operator. (R. at 136.) The second opinion, dated May 10, 17 2005, drew the same conclusion, but explicitly stated that Claimant had marked limitations due 18 to an emotional condition in areas such as: understanding and memory, sustain attention and 19 persistence, social interaction and adaptation. (R. at 148.) Both opinions included codes 20 corresponding to the respective vocational expert in place of their names. (R. at 136, 148.) Civil No. 08-2281 (JAF) -8- 1 In his decision, the ALJ assessed the credibility of Claimant s allegations based on his 2 appearance at the hearing and the aforementioned medical opinions. (R. at 29-31.) The ALJ 3 noted that Claimant testified that he had suffered from migraine headaches and an emotional 4 condition beginning around 1991 or 1993, sustained injuries from an automotive accident in 5 March 2003, and suffered from hand and wrist pain and a diminished ability to grasp. (R. at 6 25.) The ALJ found that the totality of the evidence weighed against the alleged severity of 7 Claimant s conditions. (R. at 29-31.) Citing the assessment of several vocational experts and 8 the Medical-Vocational Guidelines (the Grids ), 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 2, the ALJ 9 concluded that Claimant is capable of performing jobs that exist in significant numbers in the 10 national economy and, hence, is not disabled. (R. at 31-32.) 11 On September 10, 2008, the Appeals Council declined to review the ALJ s decision. (R. 12 at 7.) On November 7, 2008, Claimant filed the present petition in this court seeking review of 13 the ALJ s decision. (Docket No. 1.) Commissioner filed a memorandum of law on April 29, 14 2009 (Docket No. 9), and Claimant filed his memorandum on June 8, 2009 (Docket No. 14), 15 to which Commissioner responded on June 18, 2009 (Docket No. 15). 16 II. 17 Standard of Review 18 An individual is disabled under the Social Security Act ( the Act ) if he is unable to do 19 his prior work or, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other 20 kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d). Civil No. 08-2281 (JAF) -9- 1 The Act provides that [t]he findings of the Commissioner . . . as to any fact, if supported by 2 substantial evidence, shall be conclusive. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Substantial evidence exists if 3 a reasonable mind, reviewing the evidence in the record as a whole, could accept it as adequate 4 to support [the] conclusion. Irlanda-Ortíz v. Sec y of Health & Human Servs., 955 F.2d 765, 5 769 (1st Cir. 1991) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Rodríguez v. Sec y of Health 6 & Human Servs., 647 F.2d 218, 222 (1st Cir. 1981)). 7 We must uphold Commissioner's decision if we determine that substantial evidence 8 supports the ALJ s findings, even if we would have reached a different conclusion had we 9 reviewed the evidence de novo. Lizotte v. Sec y of Health & Human Servs., 654 F.2d 127, 128 10 (1st Cir. 1981). In reviewing a denial of benefits, the ALJ must consider all evidence in the 11 record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3) (2009). Credibility and [c]onflicts in the evidence are . . . 12 for the [ALJ] rather than the courts to resolve. Evangelista v. Sec y of Health & Human 13 Servs., 826 F.2d 136, 141 (1st Cir. 1987). We reverse the ALJ only if we find that he derived 14 his decision by ignoring evidence, misapplying the law, or judging matters entrusted to 15 experts. Nguyen v. Chater, 172 F.3d 31, 35 (1st Cir. 1999). 16 III. 17 Analysis 18 Alleging that the ALJ s decision was not based on substantial evidence, Claimant 19 specifically argues that the ALJ (1) improperly discredited the medical opinion of Claimant s 20 treating doctor and (2) consulted faulty assessments by vocational experts that were Civil No. 08-2281 (JAF) -10- 1 unauthenticated and not based upon Claimant s true mental condition. (Docket No. 14.) We 2 treat each contention in turn. 3 A. Medical Evidence by Treating Source 4 Claimant maintains that the ALJ gave insufficient weight to the opinion of Rodríguez, 5 who treated Claimant s mental illness. (Id.) Commissioner argues that the ALJ properly 6 weighed Rodríguez assessment against other medical evidence in the record. (Docket No. 15.) 7 Under the treating physician rule, Commissioner must generally accord greater weight 8 to the opinions of a claimant s treating sources than other sources because of the treating 9 doctors longitudinal perspective of the claimant s condition. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). If 10 a treating source s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [the claimant s] 11 impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic 12 techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record, 13 [Commissioner] will give it controlling weight. Id. Nevertheless, deference to the treating 14 physician is not absolute: A treating physician s conclusions regarding total disability may be 15 rejected by [Commissioner] . . . when . . . contradictory medical advisor evidence appears in the 16 record. Keating v. Sec y of Health & Human Servs., 848 F.2d 271, 276 (1st Cir. 1988). 17 In the present case, there is ample evidence by consulting mental health experts that 18 either differ from, or contradict, the opinion of Rodríguez, Claimant s treating psychiatrist. For 19 instance, Vecchini s Mental RFC Assessment reported significantly-less severity in Claimant s 20 limitations than Rodríguez report, even though Vecchini s report predated Rodríguez by only Civil No. 08-2281 (JAF) -11- 1 a few months. (R. at 399-401, 411-14.) Even more salient is Rebosedo s determination that 2 Rodríguez own progress notes on Claimant contradicted his assessment of Claimant s mental 3 functionality. (R. at 382.) Furthermore, Kianes examination suggested that, while Claimant 4 exhibited some antisocial traits and suffered from some deficiencies in memory, he was capable 5 of handling personal funds and carrying out household chores. (R. at 332-34.) 6 Lastly, while Rodríguez believed that Claimant was disabled and unable to work (R. at 7 414), disability under the Act is a legal determination that is reserved to the ALJ, and medical 8 experts are not qualified to render this ultimate legal conclusion. See Frank v. Barnhart, 326 9 F.3d 618, 620 (5th Cir. 2003). Under the relevant regulations, a rating of extreme functional 10 limitation in activities of daily living, social functioning, or maintenance of concentration, 11 persistence, or pace, would render a claimant disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 1520a(c)(4). Similarly, four 12 or more episodes of extended decompensation would also render a claimant disabled. Id. 13 Vecchini reported only moderate limitation in the first three categories and no episodes of 14 decompensation. (R. at 395.) Therefore, the ALJ properly weighed Rodríguez opinions 15 against countervailing medical opinions by other doctors to find that Claimant s mental 16 limitations were not as severe as Rodríguez believed. See Keating, 848 F.2d at 276. 17 B. Vocational Experts 18 Claimant also argues that the ALJ improperly relied on unauthenticated assessments by 19 vocational experts who lacked the necessary evidence on Claimant s mental health to make 20 proper evaluations. (Docket No. 14.) Commissioner contends that the vocational reports are Civil No. 08-2281 (JAF) -12- 1 properly authenticated, and that the experts accounted for certain limitations in Claimant s 2 mental capacity, even though their reports predated the ALJ s hearing. (Docket No. 15.) 3 Upon finding that a claimant is unable to return to his prior work, Commissioner bears 4 the burden of proving that the claimant could perform other jobs in the national economy. 5 Arocho v. Sec y of Health & Human Servs., 670 F.2d 374, 375 (1st Cir. 1982). Commissioner 6 may meet this burden by relying on the testimony of vocational experts, usually offered in 7 response to hypothetical medical conditions posed by the ALJ at a hearing. Id. But in order 8 for a vocational expert s [opinion] to be relevant, the inputs into that hypothetical must 9 correspond to conclusions that are supported by the outputs from the medical authorities. Id. 10 Where the vocational expert omits a significant functional limitation from his assumptions about 11 the claimant s health, the ALJ may not rely on this expert s opinion. Rose v. Shalala, 34 F.3d 12 13, 19 (1st Cir. 1994). 13 In the instant case, the ALJ found that Claimant was unable to perform any past relevant 14 work. (R. at 31.) The ALJ then consulted both the Grids and reports by vocational experts. 15 (Id.) Both vocational reports included codes to identify the responsible experts. (R. at 136, 16 148.) Furthermore, while the vocational experts did not benefit from a hypothetical posed by 17 the ALJ at a hearing, the second vocational report specifically accounted for marked limitations 18 in Claimant s ability to understand and remember, sustain attention and persistence, and social 19 interaction and adaptation. (R. at 148.) These assumptions correspond to the more severe 20 Mental RFC Assessment of Rodríguez, dated April 6, 2005 (R. at 411-14), rather than the Civil No. 08-2281 (JAF) -13- 1 milder assessment of Vecchini from November 24, 2004 (R. at 399-402). Because the second 2 vocational report was premised upon assumptions that were more severe than the ratings that 3 the ALJ ultimately accepted, the ALJ properly relied on the report to conclude that Claimant 4 was able to perform other work in the national economy and, hence, not disabled. Accordingly, 5 we find that the ALJ s determination of Claimant s non-disability has support in substantial 6 evidence and is, thus, conclusive. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 7 IV. 8 Conclusion 9 10 For the reasons stated above, we hereby AFFIRM Commissioner s determination and DENY Claimant s petition for relief (Docket No. 1). 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 8 th day of January, 2010. 13 14 15 s/José Antonio Fusté JOSE ANTONIO FUSTE Chief U.S. District Judge

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.