Candelario v. Commissioner of Social Security, Civil Action No. 07-1129 (DRD).

• Decision Date: 30 March 2008
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 07-1129 (DRD).
• Citation: 547 F.Supp.2d 92
• Parties: Daly E. CANDELARIO, Plaintiff v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico

547 F.Supp.2d 92

Daly E. CANDELARIO, Plaintiff v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 07-1129 (DRD).

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico.

March 30, 2008.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Ramon H. Rivera-Sanchez, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiff.

Ginette L. Milanes, United States Attorney's Office, San Juan, PR, for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

DENIEL R. DOMINGUEZ, District Judge.

Pending before the Court is an appeal of a denial of disability benefits under the Social Security Act. Plaintiff is a claimant who filed an application for disability insurance benefits on February 2, 2002, alleging that she was disabled and had been so since August 20, 1999¹, due to carpal tunnel syndrome, CD strain, cervical muscle spasm, degenerative changes, lumbar myositis, depression and anxiety. Plaintiff was thirty-four (34) years old in August, 1999. She has three years of college education, does not know how to communicate in the English language, and has past work experience as a legal secretary which is a light, skilled work activity.

The Plaintiffs initial application for Social Security disability benefits was denied and the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held a hearing on July 21, 2004. The ALJ determined that

[a]lthough the Claimant's non-exertional limitations may have not allowed her to perform the full range of light work, using Medical-Vocational Rules 202.16, 202.21 and 202.22 as a framework for decision-making, it can be concluded that there were a significant number of unskilled light jobs in the national economy that she could have performed prior to the expiration of the insurance coverage.

See Tr. 27-28. Furthermore, the ALJ found that the Claimant was not disabled as defined in the Social Security Act. Plaintiff filed a timely appeal with the Appeals Council, who on December 21, 2006, denied Plaintiffs request for review.

On February 15, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Complaint (Docket No. 1), appealing the denial of Social Security benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Plaintiffs complaint is based on the facts that the ALJ did not base his final conclusion on substantial evidence and that the ALJ used improper standards and misapplied the law in order to find Plaintiff not disabled.

Defendant filed an Ansiver to the Complaint (Docket No. 5) on April 24, 2007. Defendant requests that the Court dismiss the complaint, with costs and disbursements, and enter judgement in accordance with section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 405(g), because the Commissioner's findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and are conclusive.

On April 26, 2007, Defendant filed a Memorandum of Law (Docket No. 6), claiming that since there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Commissioner's decision, that Plaintiff was not entitled to disability benefits, consequently the Commissioner's decision should be affirmed.

Plaintiff filed her Memorandum, of Laic (Docket No. 8) on May 10, 2007. Plaintiff specifically alleges that the ALJ failed to consider the nature and extent of the limitations arising from her medical conditions, that the ALJ did not base the RFC on a medical assessment from a treating or evaluating physician, that the ALJ did not give proper weight to the treating physicians medical reports and dismissed their opinions without explaining why, and failed to provide proper weight to the testimony of the claimant.

On October 17, 2007, the Court referred this case to Magistrate Judge Justo Arenas for a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 9). On January 11, 2007. Magistrate Judge Arenas submitted his Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 11), to the Court. Magistrate Judge Arenas reviewed the ALJ's findings to discern whether there was substantial evidence supporting the ALJ's decision to deny disability status. After reviewing the record, the Magistrate Judge determined that

"[u]nder the limited rubric which this court implements in its deferential consideration of the finding of the Commissioner under the substantial evidence rule, [he] could not find that a fortiori the administrative law judge has violated such a rule."

See Docket No. 11, pg. 11 (emphasis Therefore, the. Magistrate Judge recommended that the final decision of the Commissioner be affirmed and that the instant case be dismissed.

On January 16, 2007, Plaintiff filed timely Objections to Hie Magistrate-Judge's Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 12). Plaintiff contends that the Magistrate Judge erred by failing to support the RFC with evidence, by making reference to conflicts in the medical evidence, by making reference to the fact that the ALJ took administrative notice of the existence of 2,500 unskilled, medium, light and sedentary occupations in the national economy for which 1,400 are light and 200 are sedentary, by making erroneous conclusions about the claimant's treatment, by requiring a more strict compliance for the standard of proving pain than the rules and regulations require, and by failing to consider the combined effect of the physical and mental impairments on Plaintiffs capacity to do work related activities in a sustained manner.

Consequently, on January 28, 2007, the Defendant filed a Response in Support of the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation (Docket No. 13). In short, the Defendant alleges that Plaintiff in her objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation fails to prove that either the ALJ or the Magistrate Judge's decisions were not based on substantial evidence supported by the record as whole.

For the reasons stated below, the Court ACCEPTS, ADOPTS and INCORPRATES by reference, the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 11), to the instant Order. Consequently, the Commissioner's decision is here by AFFIRMED. II. Applicable Law

A. Referring Dispositive Motions to a U.S. Magistrate Judges

The District Court may refer dispositive motions to a United States Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b); L.Civ.R. 72(b); See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 96 S.Ct. 549, 46 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). Of course, an adversely affected party may contest the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation by filing its objections within ten (10) days after being served a copy thereof. FED. R.CIVP. 72(b); L.Civ.R. 72(d). Moreover, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), in pertinent part, provides that:

Within ten days of being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of the court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations make by the magistrate.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Any objections to the Magistrate Judge's order must be filed with the Clerk of Court within ten (10) days after being served with a copy [thereof]. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2005); L.Civ.R. 72(c).

Any written objections must specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the legal basis for such objections. L.Civ.R. 72(c). Failure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal the District Court's order. U.S. v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir.1986). Additionally, claims which are not preserved by such objections are precluded upon appeal. Davet v. Maccarone, 973 F.2d 22, 30-31 (1st Cir.1992). Thus, timely objections are required in order to challenge the findings of a magistrate's recommendation, as well as the magistrate's failure to make additional findings. Henley Drilling Co. v. McGee, 36 F.3d 143, 150-151 (1st Cir. 1994). Additionally, only objections to the magistrate's recommendation which are specified are preserved. Lewry v. Town of Standish, 984 F.2d 25, 27 (1st Cir.1993). Therefore, the objecting party is only entitled to a de novo review of the issues which are specifically raised by the objection. See, e.g. U.S. v. Valencia, 792 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir.1986); See also Gioiosa v. U.S., 684 F.2d 176, 178 (1st Cir. 1982). In the instant case, Plaintiff timely made specific objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. We must therefore review de novo the portions of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to which the Plaintiff has expressed objection.

B. Social Security Claim

Under the Social Security Act, the factual findings of the presiding Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) are conclusive where they are supported by "substantial evidence." 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). This Court will uphold the ALJ's findings where "a reasonable mind, reviewing the evidence in the record as a whole, could accept it as adequate to support his conclusion." Rodriguez v. Sec. of Health and Human Svcs., 647 F.2d 218, 222 (1st Cir. 1981). However, in reaching the disability determination, "[i]t is the responsibility of the [ALJ] to determine issues of credibility and to draw inferences from the record evidence." See Irlanda Ortiz v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 955 F.2d 765, 769 (1st Cir.1991) (emphasis ours); see also Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S 389, 399, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971). The resolution of conflicts in the evidence and the determination of the ultimate question of disability is for the ALJ, not for the doctors or for the reviewing Courts. See Richardson, 402 U.S. at 399, 91 S.Ct. 1420 (When the Courts are presented with "the not uncommon situation of conflicting medical evidence .... [it is for] ... [t]he trier of fact[s] ... to solve ...".) (emphasis ours); see also Rodriguez v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 647 F.2d 218, 222 (1st Cir.1981)(Although the Court found that the "other medical evidence in the record conflicted with" one of the doctors conclusions,...