Feliciano-Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 3:2010cv01228 - Document 15 (D.P.R. 2011)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER re 2 SOCIAL SECURITY COMPLAINT filed by Luz E. Feliciano-Rodriguez. We AFFIRM the Commissioner of Social Security's determination and DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE all claims in the present case. Judgment shall enter accordingly. Signed by Chief Judge Jose A Fuste on 3/3/2011.(mrj)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Feliciano-Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Social Security 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Doc. 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO LUZ E. FELICIANO-RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, Civil No. 10-1228 (JAF) v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Defendant. 15 16 17 Plaintiff petitions this court under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to review the decision of 18 Defendant, the Commissioner of Social Security ( Commissioner ), denying Plaintiff s 19 application for disability benefits. (Docket No. 2.) Commissioner files a memorandum 20 defending Commissioner s denial (Docket No. 11), and Plaintiff files a memorandum 21 challenging it (Docket No. 12). OPINION AND ORDER 22 I. 23 Background 24 We derive the following facts from the transcript of the record in this case ( R. ). 25 Plaintiff was born on November 3, 1962. (R. at 49.) She received her high-school diploma. 26 (Id.) She worked for nineteen years at El Dorado Beach Hotel first as housekeeper and then 27 as assistant manager in charge of the hotel restaurant until May 2006, when the hotel ceased 28 operations. (R. at 51 53, 292.) Plaintiff claims that she stopped working due to depression and Dockets.Justia.com Civil No. 10-1228 (JAF) -2- 1 back pain. (R. at 51.) On June 13, 2007, Plaintiff applied for Social Security disability benefits. 2 (R. at 33.) She claimed that she was disabled under the Social Security Act ( Act ) on account 3 of her high blood pressure, depression, anxiety, kidney stones, multiple sclerosis, hypoglycemia, 4 and pain in her neck, shoulders, and back. (R. at 117.) 5 On January 29, 2008, Commissioner determined that Plaintiff was not disabled and, 6 accordingly, was not entitled to disability benefits under the Act. (R. at 33, 117 20.) Plaintiff 7 requested reconsideration of the determination and, on May 9, 2008, Commissioner affirmed 8 the denial. (R. at 33, 95 96, 252 53.) 9 On June 10, 2008, Plaintiff requested a hearing before an administrative law judge 10 ( ALJ ) (R. at 33, 254 58), which took place before ALJ Gilbert RodrÃguez, on January 20, 11 2009 (R. at 46 62). Plaintiff attended the hearing with counsel and testified regarding her 12 alleged disability. (Id.) On the basis of that testimony and evidence discussed below, the ALJ 13 rendered a decision on April 20, 2009, determining that Plaintiff is not disabled and denying her 14 benefits under the Act. (R. at 33 44.) On March 31, 2009, Plaintiff requested review of the 15 ALJ decision from the Appeals Council (R. at 23 26) and, on February 24, 2010, the Appeals 16 Council denied her that review (R. at 1-4). Finally, on March 17, 2010, Plaintiff filed the instant 17 case for judicial review of Commissioner s decision. (Docket No. 2.) 18 Civil No. 10-1228 (JAF) -3- 1 II. 2 Standard of Review 3 An individual is disabled under the Act if she is unable to do her prior work or, 4 considering [her] age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial 5 gainful work which exists in the national economy. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d). The Act provides that 6 [t]he findings of the Commissioner . . . as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, 7 shall be conclusive. § 405(g). Substantial evidence exists if a reasonable mind, reviewing 8 the evidence in the record as a whole, could accept it as adequate to support [the] conclusion. 9 Irlanda Ortiz v. Sec y of Health & Human Servs., 955 F.2d 765, 769 (1st Cir. 1991) (quoting 10 Rodriguez v. Sec y of Health & Human Servs., 647 F.2d 218, 222 (1st Cir. 1981)). 11 We must uphold Commissioner s decision if we determine that substantial evidence 12 supports the ALJ s findings, even if we would have reached a different conclusion had we 13 reviewed the evidence de novo. Lizotte v. Sec y of Health & Human Servs., 654 F.2d 127, 128 14 (1st Cir. 1981). In reviewing a denial of benefits, the ALJ must have considered all evidence 15 in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3). Credibility and [c]onflicts in the evidence are . . 16 . for the [ALJ] rather than the courts to resolve. Evangelista v. Sec y of Health & 17 Human Servs., 826 F.2d 136, 141 (1st Cir. 1987). We reverse the ALJ only if we find that he 18 derived his decision by ignoring evidence, misapplying the law, or judging matters entrusted 19 to experts. Nguyen v. Chater, 172 F.3d 31, 35 (1st Cir. 1999). 20 Civil No. 10-1228 (JAF) -4- 1 III. 2 Analysis 3 Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred in assessing her residual functional capacity 4 ( RFC ) by determining, without the aid of a vocational or medical expert, that she can perform 5 her past relevant work. (Docket No. 12 at 10 18.) She argues that the ALJ, in doing so, cited 6 only the evidence favorable to the Commissioner, to the disregard of the overwhelming 7 evidence to the contrary. (Id. at 17.) We analyze this contention below with respect to each 8 ALJ determination unfavorable to Plaintiff, namely that (1) among her various ailments, only 9 her depression and neck and back conditions constitute severe impairments; (2) none of her 10 severe impairments, nor any combination of them, meets or equals a listed impairment; and 11 (3) her RFC permits her to perform her past relevant work. 12 A. Severe Impairments 13 Of the several ailments from which Plaintiff suffers, the ALJ found that only her 14 depression and her neck and back pain caused by cervical and lumbar osteoarthritis and 15 lumbar levoscoliosis are severe. (See R. at 16-17.) This constitutes a finding by the ALJ that 16 Plaintiff s other impairments do not significantly limit [her] physical or mental ability to do 17 basic work activities. 18 Plaintiff s other physical impairments do not affect her ability to walk, stand, sit, lift, push, pull, 19 reach, carry, or handle. § 404.1521(b). On review, we must determine whether substantial 20 evidence supports this conclusion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521(a). Specifically, the ALJ concluded that Civil No. 10-1228 (JAF) -5- 1 Plaintiff does not specifically challenge the ALJ s finding that her other physical 2 impairments were not severe. (Docket No. 12.) In fact, in 2007, Plaintiff explicitly pointed to 3 her mental limitations and her neck and back pain as the root of her inability to work. (R. at 4 314 21.) She did so again in 2008. (R. at 328 34.) In addition, at the ALJ hearing, Plaintiff 5 claimed that her mental problems and back pain were what rendered her unable to work. (See 6 R. at 51.) 7 The ALJ concluded that there was no medical evidence in the record suggesting that 8 Plaintiff s other physical impairments affected her ability to work. (R. at 35 36.) Having 9 reviewed all medical records as to her physical impairments during the relevant time period (R. 10 at 79 85, 93 94, 99 101, 130 38, 166 68, 182, 185, 186, 423 25, 428 29, 434 39, 446 49, 11 517 25, 527, 529 37), we agree and determine that substantial evidence supports the ALJ s 12 conclusion. 13 B. Meets or Medically Equals a Listed Impairment 14 The ALJ concluded that Plaintiff s depression and neck and back conditions, while 15 severe, do not meet or medically equal a listed impairment. (R. at 36 37.) On review, we must 16 determine whether substantial evidence supports that conclusion. 17 1. 18 The ALJ explained that Plaintiff s cervical and lumbar conditions fail to meet a listed 19 impairment because the record fails to reveal sensory or reflex loss, motor loss, and atrophy 20 or muscle weakness. (R. at 36.) The Code of Federal Regulations ( Code ) lists the spinal Physical Impairments Civil No. 10-1228 (JAF) -6- 1 conditions to which we compare Plaintiff s. See 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, pt. A, 1.04. 2 This listing requires that a plaintiff display a spinal disorder, such as osteoarthritis, resulting 3 in compromise of a nerve root . . . or the spinal cord plus (1) evidence of nerve-root 4 compression accompanied by sensory or reflex loss and, if the lower back is involved, a positive 5 straight-leg raising ( SLR ) test, id. at 1.04A; (2) spinal arachnoiditis, id. at 1.04B; or 6 (3) lumbar spinal stenosis resulting in the inability to ambulate effectively,1 id. at 1.04C. 7 There is no evidence that Plaintiff suffers from spinal arachnoiditis, and there is 8 evidence, including from Plaintiff s treating physician, that Plaintiff had no limitation as to 9 walking (see, e.g., R. at 100, 167 (describing Plaintiff s gait as normal ).) While Plaintiff 10 suffers from cervical and lumbar pain, we agree there is no evidence in the record of nerve-root 11 compression or of sensory or reflex loss. (See, e.g., id. (describing sensory and reflexes as 12 normal ).) Thus, we find that substantial evidence supports the ALJ s determination that 13 Plaintiff s neck and back conditions do not meet a listed impairment. 14 2. 15 Section 404.1520a describes a particular technique the ALJ must apply to assess a 16 claimed mental impairment. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a(a) (describing need for special 17 technique). In determining that a plaintiff suffers from a severe mental impairment, an ALJ 1 Mental Impairment The Code defines the inability to ambulate effectively as the inability to walk without the use of a hand-held assistive device. 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, pt. A, 1.00B2b. Civil No. 10-1228 (JAF) -7- 1 must make a specific finding as to the degree of limitation in each of four functional areas.2 The 2 ALJ uses those same ratings later, when deciding whether a plaintiff s severe depression meets 3 or medically equals a listed mental disorder. At this second application of the ratings, however, 4 the ALJ need only determine that a plaintiff s severe depression does not result in extreme or 5 marked limitation in at least two of the four functional areas.3 6 In the case at hand, the ALJ found that Plaintiff has mild difficulties with activities of 7 daily living; moderate difficulties with social functioning and concentration, persistence, or 2 An ALJ deciding whether a plaintiff suffers from a severe mental impairment first must determine whether the plaintiff has a medically-determinable impairment and, if so, must both specify the symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings that substantiate the presence of the impairment and rate the degree of functional limitation resulting from the impairment. § 404.1520a(b). The ALJ must so rate as to four broad functional areas: activities of daily living; social functioning; concentration, persistence, or pace; and episodes of decompensation. § 404.1520a(c)(3). The ratings for the first three areas are based on a five-point scale (none, mild, moderate, marked, and extreme); the rating for the fourth area is based on a four-point scale (none, one or two, three, four or more). § 404.1520a(c)(4). If the ALJ rates the limitation in the first three functional areas as none or mild and in the fourth area as none, the ALJ generally will conclude that the impairment is not severe. § 404.1520a(d)(1). Otherwise, the ALJ must continue the analysis by determining whether the impairment meets or is equivalent in severity to a listed mental disorder and, if so, assessing the plaintiff s RFC. § 404.1520a(d)(2), (3). The ALJ s written decision must incorporate the pertinent findings and conclusions based on the technique. § 404.1520a(e)(2). 3 To determine that a plaintiff s depression neither meets nor is equivalent in severity to the listed mental disorder, the ALJ has to find that the plaintiff s impairment does not match the criteria in either (1) paragraphs A and B of a particular section in the Code of Federal Regulations, 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, pt. A, 12.04; or (2) paragraph C of same. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520a(d)(2), 404.1525. For a plaintiff s impairment to match the criteria in paragraph B, the ALJ has to determine that the plaintiff s limitation is marked in at least two of the four areas of functional capacities. See 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, pt. A, 12.04B. For a plaintiff s impairment to match the criteria in paragraph C, the ALJ has to determine that the plaintiff experienced (1) repeated episodes of decompensation, each of extended duration; (2) a residual disease process that has resulted in such marginal adjustment that even a minimal increase in mental demands or change in the environment would be predicted to cause the individual to decompensate; or (3) a current history of one or more years inability to function outside a highly supportive living arrangement, with an indication of continued need for such an arrangement. See 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, pt. A, 12.04C. Civil No. 10-1228 (JAF) -8- 1 pace; and no episodes of decompensation. (R. at 36 37.) On review, we need only determine 2 whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ s determination that Plaintiff s limitation is not 3 marked in at least two of the four categories. See supra note 2 and accompanying text. 4 The ALJ s ratings are no less favorable to Plaintiff than those of the consulting 5 physicians who submitted mental evaluations in this case. The first of two such evaluations, 6 submitted in 2007, reported that Plaintiff s mental impairment was severe but not expected to 7 last longer than twelve months. (R. at 496 99.) It also reported the following ratings: mild, 8 mild, mild, none. (Id.) The second evaluation, dated 2008, reported ratings that mirror those 9 of the ALJ. (R. at 551 70.) It contains a detailed explanation of the consulting doctor s 10 observations, specifically that there are no objective findings that indicate any gross cognitive 11 deficits. (R. at 553.) He also noted that Plaintiff s pharmacological treatment does not 12 represent that of a severe condition and that Plaintiff could, inter alia, adequately complete 13 a normal workweek and workday. (Id.) 14 The ALJ also considered the findings of Plaintiff s treating and examining physicians. 15 (R. at 36 37.) Upon review of the record, we find that he accurately recited said findings and 16 that substantial evidence supports his decision to weigh them as he did. (See id.; R. at 63 37, 17 102 06, 160 64, 496 99, 597 98.) Further, we find that the record, on the whole, contains 18 sufficient evidence to support the ALJ s finding that Plaintiff experiences no more than 19 moderate limitations in the first three categories and none in the fourth. (See id.) With the 20 ALJ s ratings in mind, and with no evidence that Plaintiff s condition meets the criteria outlined Civil No. 10-1228 (JAF) -9- 1 in paragraph C, as defined supra note 3, we find that substantial evidence supports the ALJ s 2 finding that Plaintiff s mental impairment neither meets nor medically equals a listed 3 impairment. 4 C. Residual Functional Capacity and Ability to Perform Past Relevant Work 5 To conclude, finally, that Plaintiff is not disabled, the ALJ first had to assess Plaintiff s 6 RFC and then use that assessment to determine whether Plaintiff could perform her past relevant 7 work or, if not, nevertheless adjust to other work. 8 404.1520a(d)(3), 404.1545, 404.1560 .1569a. Section 404.1545 guides the ALJ s assessment 9 of RFC, which is defined as the most [one] can do despite [one s] limitations. 10 § 404.1545(a)(1). The ALJ must use all of the relevant medical and other evidence to assess 11 RFC. § 404.1545(a)(3); see also § 404.1545(c) (describing evidence relevant to mental 12 limitations). Section 404.1529 guides the ALJ s evaluation of symptoms and their effect on a 13 plaintiff s capacity for work. See, e.g., § 404.1529(c), (d)(4). See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 14 Referencing relevant regulations, the ALJ found that Plaintiff retains the physical ability 15 to perform medium work and the mental ability to learn, understand, remember, and carry 16 out simple work instructions, maintain attention and concentration for two hour periods without 17 undue interruptions, perform as per schedule and routine, appropriately interact with 18 supervisors, co workers, and others, and can adequately complete a normal workweek and 19 workday. (R. at 38; see generally R. at 38 43 (stating basis for that conclusion).) He reviewed 20 Plaintiff s self evaluations and discussed their consistency with the actual treatment Plaintiff Civil No. 10-1228 (JAF) -10- 1 received, progress notes from her treating physicians, and the frequency of her visits to those 2 physicians. (R. at 38 43.) 3 As to Plaintiff s physical impairments, the ALJ noted her treating physician s 2008 4 report, which noted normal neurologic functioning (R. at 100) and no limitation of movement 5 in her extremities (R. at 101). He gave weight to Plaintiff s examining physician, whose 6 observations he found consistent with the treating physician s progress notes and treatment and 7 who concluded that Plaintiff had a normal range of motion with no difficulty to sit, walk, 8 speak, hear, lift, carry, and handle objects or travel. (R. at 40; see also 519 21 (examining 9 physician s report).) In light of those reports, the ALJ relied on the expert medical opinion 10 of the consulting physician who opined that Plaintiff s RFC was for medium work. (R. at 40; 11 see also 529 37 (consulting physician s report).) We agree and find this consistent with 12 Plaintiff s testimony and self reports, which focus on her mental limitations when discussing 13 her inability to work. (See, e.g., R. at 61, 107 16, 172 79.) 14 As to her mental impairment, the ALJ detailed the conclusions of Plaintiff s treating, 15 examining, and consulting physicians. (R. at 40 43.) He also reviewed the credibility of her 16 self evaluations and testimony in light of her treatment and, inter alia, interactions with him at 17 the ALJ hearing. (Id.) Having reviewed the relevant medical evidence (R. at 63 67, 102 06, 18 160 64, 496 99, 501 15, 551 70, 597 98), we conclude that substantial evidence supports the 19 ALJ s conclusions as to her residual mental capacity for work. Civil No. 10-1228 (JAF) -11- 1 Next, the ALJ had to determine whether Plaintiff, given her particular RFC, can perform 2 past relevant work. See §§ 404.1520(f), 404.1560(b). The ALJ may but need not use a 3 vocational expert to aid this determination. § 404.1560(b)(2). The ALJ found, without the aid 4 of a vocational expert, that Plaintiff can perform her past relevant work. (R. at 43.) Upon 5 review of Plaintiff s work history evidence (see, e.g., R. at 300 02), and given our finding as 6 to the ALJ s assessment of Plaintiff s RFC, supra, we find that substantial evidence supports 7 the ALJ s finding that Plaintiff can perform her past relevant work. We, therefore, uphold the 8 ALJ s attendant conclusion that Plaintiff is not disabled. 9 IV. 10 Conclusion 11 In view of the foregoing, we hereby AFFIRM Commissioner s determination. We 12 DENY Plaintiff s petition (Docket No. 2) and DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE all claims 13 therein. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 3rd day of March, 2011. 16 17 18 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.
