Rodriguez Pagan v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
Decision Date | 24 March 1987 |
Docket Number | No. 86-1464,86-1464 |
Citation | 819 F.2d 1 |
Parties | , Unempl.Ins.Rep. CCH 17,374 Nicasio RODRIGUEZ PAGAN, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Rafael Carreras-Valle, Rio Piedras, P.R., on brief, for plaintiff, appellant.
Pamela Gerr, Atty., Office of the General Counsel, Social Security Div., Dept. of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C., Daniel F. Lopez Romo, U.S. Atty., Wanda Rubianes Collazo, Asst. U.S. Atty., Hato Rey, P.R., Donald A. Gonya, Chief Counsel for Social Security, Randolph W. Gaines, Deputy Chief Counsel for Social Security Litigation, and A. George Lowe, Chief, Disability Litigation Branch, Baltimore, Md., on brief, for defendant, appellee.
Before COFFIN, BOWNES and BREYER, Circuit Judges.
Claimant Nicasio Rodriguez Pagan filed an application for Social Security disability benefits on December 17, 1981 alleging left leg problems, high blood pressure, pain, and a nervous condition. The Secretary denied benefits on the ground that claimant had not demonstrated the existence of a severe impairment. After a district court affirmance, this court, on appeal, vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded the case for further consideration on the ground that the Secretary had failed to consider medical evidence supporting the claim of a severe impairment.
On remand, the ALJ (administrative law judge) reassessed the evidence without a further hearing and found claimant not disabled. The ALJ conceded that claimant had a severe impairment or impairments that precluded his return to his former work as a carpenter and construction laborer, but found that claimant retained the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work. Accordingly, the ALJ applied Rule 201.25 of the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2 ("the grid") to reach a finding of not disabled. The ALJ evaluated claimant's non-exertional impairments (high blood pressure, pain and a nervous condition) and found that they did not significantly affect his ability to perform the full range of jobs requiring sedentary work. After the Appeals Council denied claimant's request for review of the ALJ's decision, claimant appealed to the district court, which affirmed the Secretary. On appeal to this court, claimant contends that the Secretary misapplied the grid and that the Secretary's decision is not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.
We find substantial evidence in the record to support the Secretary's finding that claimant's exertional impairments did not preclude him from performing the full range of jobs requiring sedentary work during the period from December 31, 1978 to June 30, 1979. 1 There is no question that claimant suffered a fracture of his left leg in 1969 that resulted in some functional limitations. Some medical evidence also suggests that claimant suffered from arthritis. However, the Secretary credited a residual functional capacity evaluation submitted by Dr. Medina, a consulting internist/cardiologist, which concluded that claimant could stand, walk, or sit eight hours, lift up to 50 pounds and lift or carry up to 25 pounds frequently, and bend, squat, crawl, climb, and reach above shoulder level occasionally. Dr. Medina found no functional limitations on claimant's use of his hands, but found that claimant could not use his left leg for repetitive movements such as operation of foot controls. Dr. Medina's findings established that claimant's exertional impairments did not preclude him from performing sedentary work, which is defined in the Social Security regulations as follows:
Although other medical evidence in the record conflicted with Dr. Medina's conclusions, the resolution of such conflicts in the evidence is for the Secretary. We must affirm the Secretary's resolution, even if the record arguably could justify a different conclusion, so long as it is supported by substantial evidence. Lizotte v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 654 F.2d 127, 128 (1st Cir.1981). We have no basis on which to question the Secretary's decision not to credit the medical findings of two treating physicians, Dr. Davila and Dr. Felix, that claimant's exertional impairments disabled him or substantially restricted his functional capacity. The Secretary assessed the reports of both physicians and reasonably concluded that they relied excessively on claimant's subjective complaints, rather than on objective medical findings. The opinions of Dr. Davila and Dr. Felix are not entitled to greater weight merely because they were treating physicians, whereas Dr. Medina was a consulting physician. Sitar v. Schweiker, 671 F.2d 19, 22 (1st Cir.1982); Perez v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, 622 F.2d 1 (1st Cir.1980). Nor is the Secretary bound to accept Dr. Felix's evaluation of claimant's leg condition merely because Dr. Felix is an orthopedist, whereas Dr. Medina is an internist/cardiologist. Our layman's view is that assessing the functional impact of claimant's leg problems does not require a high degree of medical specialization. Claimant, while noting that Dr. Medina is not an orthopedist, does not argue to the contrary. Under the circumstances of this case we cannot say that the Secretary acted unreasonably in crediting Dr. Medina's report.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Arruda v. Barnhart
...See Evangelista v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 826 F.2d 136, 144 (1st Cir.1987); Rodriguez Pagan v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 819 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1987). In the case at bar, the ALJ determined that Arruda was not disabled. The Social Security Act defines a disabi......
-
Ramos-Rodriguez v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
...support for an alternative RFC determination, the ALJ was not required to assign it greater weight. Rodriguez–Pagan v. Sec'y of Health & Human Services, 819 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1987) ; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (providing that a treating source's opinion will be given controlling w......
-
Musto v. Halter
...arguably could justify a different conclusion, so long as it is supported by substantial evidence." Rodriguez Pagan v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 819 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1987) (citing Lizotte v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 654 F.2d 127, 128 [1st Cir.1981]). Even in the presence of s......
-
Patricia B. v. Kijakazi
... ... Plaintiff's mental health impairments severe ... The ... 1991) ... ( per curiam ); Rodriguez v. Sec'y of ... HHS , 647 F.2d 218, 222 (1 ... Rodriguez ... Pagan v. Sec'y of HHS , 819 F.2d 1, 3 (1 st ... See DaRosa v. Sec'y of Health and Human ... Servs. , 803 F.2d 24 (1 st Cir. 1986) ... ...
-
Table of Cases
...Rodriguez Flores v. Apfel , 28 F. Supp.2d 67, 68 (D.P.R. 1998), §§ 602.2, 603.1 Rodriguez Pagan v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs ., 819 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1987), §§ 107.12, 202.2 Rodriguez v. Barnhart , 249 F. Supp.2d 210 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2003), § 1203.6 Rodriguez v. Bowen , 876 F.2d......
-
Case survey
...able to perform.” Guyton v. Apfel , 20 F. Supp.2d 156, 162 (D. Mass. 1998), citing Rodriguez Pagan v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs ., 819 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1987); Ortiz v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , 890 F.2d 520, 524 (1st Cir. 1989). However, the Grid rules are less applicable the ......
-
Assessment of disability issues
...Callahan , 2 F. Supp.2d 212, 217 (D.P.R. 1998), citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)-(3); Rodriguez- Pagan v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs ., 819 F.2d 1, 3 (1 st Cir. 1987). The ALJ’s reliance on medical expert testimony was acceptable when the medical expert found no medical evidence to supp......
-
Table of cases
...Rodriguez Flores v. Apfel , 28 F. Supp.2d 67, 68 (D.P.R. 1998), §§ 602.2, 603.1 Rodriguez Pagan v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs ., 819 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1987), §§ 107.12, 202.2 Rodriguez v. Barnhart , 249 F. Supp.2d 210 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2003), § 1203.6 Rodriguez v. Bowen , 876 F.2d......