Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 19 views

    Ramirez Morales v. SHHS, 1st Cir. (1993)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling that substantial evidence supported the Secretary of Health and Human Services' determination that the claimant was not disabled. Specifically, the Court found that at the time the claimant's insured status expired, he retained the physical and mental abilities to perform a narrow range of light, unskilled jobs such as those enumerated by the Administrative Law Judge. Additionally, the Court determined that the hypothetical posed to the vocational expert adequately accounted for the claimant's limitations, including his ability to occasionally stoop, and that the ALJ properly relied on additional evidence rather than mechanically applying the medical-vocational guidelines.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Ramirez Morales v. SHHS, 1st Cir. (1993)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    19 views6 pages
    The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling that substantial evidence supported the Secretary of Health and Human Services' determination that the claimant was not disabled. Specifically, the Court found that at the time the claimant's insured status expired, he retained the physical and mental abilities to perform a narrow range of light, unskilled jobs such as those enumerated by the Administrative Law Judge. Additionally, the Court determined that the hypothetical posed to the vocational expert adequately accounted for the claimant's limitations, including his ability to occasionally stoop, and that the ALJ properly relied on additional evidence rather than mechanically applying the medical-vocational guidelines.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1993-05-26 Precedential Status: Precedential Docket: 92-1897

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling that substantial evidence supported the Secretary of Health and Human Services' determination that the claimant was not disabled. Specifically, the Court found that at the time the claimant's insured status expired, he retained the physical and mental abilities to perform a narrow range of light, unskilled jobs such as those enumerated by the Administrative Law Judge. Additionally, the Court determined that the hypothetical posed to the vocational expert adequately accounted for the claimant's limitations, including his ability to occasionally stoop, and that the ALJ properly relied on additional evidence rather than mechanically applying the medical-vocational guidelines.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    19 views6 pages

    Ramirez Morales v. SHHS, 1st Cir. (1993)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling that substantial evidence supported the Secretary of Health and Human Services' determination that the claimant was not disabled. Specifically, the Court found that at the time the claimant's insured status expired, he retained the physical and mental abilities to perform a narrow range of light, unskilled jobs such as those enumerated by the Administrative Law Judge. Additionally, the Court determined that the hypothetical posed to the vocational expert adequately accounted for the claimant's limitations, including his ability to occasionally stoop, and that the ALJ properly relied on additional evidence rather than mechanically applying the medical-vocational guidelines.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 6

    USCA1 Opinion

    May 25, 1993


    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
    ____________________
    No. 92-1897
    CESAR RAMIREZ-MORALES,
    Plaintiff, Appellant,
    v.
    SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
    Defendant, Appellee.
    ____________________
    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
    [Hon. Raymond L. Acosta, U.S. District Judge]
    ___________________
    ____________________
    Before
    Breyer, Chief Judge,
    ___________
    Torruella and Cyr, Circuit Judges.
    ______________
    ____________________

    Raymond Rivera Esteves and Juan A. Hernandez Rivera on brief


    ______________________
    _________________________
    appellant.
    Daniel F. Lopez Romo, United States Attorney, Jose Vazq
    _______________________
    __________
    Garcia, Assistant United States Attorney, and Donna C. McCart
    ______
    ________________
    Assistant Regional Counsel, Department of Health and Human Servic
    on brief for appellee.
    ____________________
    ____________________

    Per Curiam.
    __________
    and

    conclude

    that

    We have carefully reviewed the


    substantial

    evidence

    record

    supports

    the

    Secretary's determination that claimant was not disabled when


    his insured
    time, the
    range of

    status expired,

    and that

    physical and mental abilities to


    light, unskilled jobs

    claimant's arguments

    and,

    finding

    the magistrate-judge's

    enumerated by

    We have considered all


    them without

    affirm the judgment of the district court


    basis of

    at that

    perform a narrow

    such as those

    the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ").


    of

    he retained,

    report

    merit,

    essentially on the
    as adopted

    by

    the

    argues that

    the

    district court.
    We add these
    hypothetical posed

    comments.

    to the

    Claimant

    vocational

    expert was

    defective

    because it

    did not include a

    the ALJ ultimately


    inability to
    light

    jobs

    non-exertional impairment that

    found the claimant to

    possess, namely an

    perform frequent stooping and


    ________
    require,

    at

    most, only

    bending.

    occasional

    Frustaglia v. Secretary of HHS, 829 F.2d 192, 195


    __________
    _________________
    1987).

    If a person can do some stooping and

    by implication,
    base is

    the ALJ found here,

    virtually intact."

    Ruling 85-15).
    the ALJ found
    light

    claimant could

    occupational

    stooping.

    base

    (1st Cir.

    bending, which,

    Social

    list of light-work
    perform are a

    which

    stooping.1

    the "light occupational

    Id. (quoting
    ___

    The narrowed

    First,

    does not

    Security
    jobs which

    sub-set of
    involve

    Cf. Social Security 85-15 (most medium,


    ___

    the

    frequent
    heavy and

    ____________________
    1.
    Stooping is considered the least strenuous of the
    bending postures, and involves bending the body from the
    waist downward and forward. Social Security Ruling 85-15.

    very

    heavy jobs

    require the

    ability to

    stoop frequently).

    Thus, the

    frequent stooping restriction has

    little, if any,

    relevance to the light occupational base.


    Second, since claimant
    work

    determination,

    restriction
    narrowed

    does

    range

    not,
    of

    claimant could do.2


    an examination
    occasionally
    consulted

    per

    is

    specific

    the
    argued,

    light

    occasionally.

    further

    jobs

    for the Secretary, found


    stoop.

    Dr.

    Thus, the

    Grovas,

    the light

    no-frequent-stooping

    the

    limit
    ALJ

    Ortiz, a neurologist who

    by claimant,

    the range of

    se,

    as

    Dr.

    does not contest

    an

    also determined

    the

    decided
    performed

    that claimant could


    orthopaedic surgeon
    that he

    could bend

    ALJ's hypothetical, as delimited to

    light work, adequately

    took into account

    that

    virtually all light work jobs require no more than occasional


    stooping,

    an

    shows, remained
    Keating
    _______
    1988).

    activity
    within

    which, the

    claimant's residual

    v. Secretary of HHS,
    _________________
    Moreover,

    advantage of,

    the

    848 F.2d

    claimant

    the opportunity

    and correct any perceived

    uncontradicted

    had,

    capacity.

    See
    ___

    271, 274

    (1st Cir.

    but

    not

    to pose his

    inadequacies.

    evidence

    did

    take

    own hypothetical

    Torres v. Secretary
    ______
    _________

    of HHS, 870 F.2d 742, 746 (1st Cir. 1989).


    ______

    ____________________
    2.
    And, the capacity for light unskilled work represents,
    overall, a substantial vocational scope for
    a younger
    individual (age 18-49) such as claimant who was 36 when his
    insured status expired.
    Medical-Vocational Guidelines, 20
    C.F.R. Part 404, Subpt. P, App. 2,
    202.00 (g).

    -3-

    Finally,
    mechanically
    Guidelines,
    "Grid"),

    the

    apply
    20

    to

    520,

    the

    C.F.R.

    not, as

    rules
    Part

    of

    524

    Cir.

    Medical-Vocational

    404, Subpt.

    still do.

    (1st

    claimant contends,

    the

    determine the availability

    the claimant could


    F.2d

    ALJ did

    P,

    App.

    (the

    of other work

    that

    Ortiz v. Secretary of HHS, 890


    _____
    ________________
    1989).

    After considering

    the

    individualized evidence

    offered by a vocational

    expert, the

    ALJ merely referred to a

    particular rule3 as a

    "framework",

    i.e.,

    additional

    Claimant's

    assertion that

    using a Grid
    indicate

    ALJ's

    for
    the

    the

    the ALJ

    failed

    claimant's physical

    decision

    clearly

    ultimate

    ALJ "disposed

    rule is simply incorrect.

    that

    effect of

    support

    to

    Nor

    decision.

    of" the

    does the record

    consider the

    cumulative

    and mental impairments.

    manifests

    that

    case

    both

    The

    claimant's

    physical and mental residual capacity were taken into account


    in determining

    a narrowed light work

    occupational base, and

    substantial evidence supports those predicate findings.


    Affirmed.
    ________

    ____________________
    3.
    The ALJ referred to
    Rule 202.21 which directs a
    conclusion of "not disabled" for individuals like claimant:
    younger, with a high school education and non-transferable
    prior work skills.
    -4-

    You might also like