Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Social Security, 3:18-cv-01907

Background

Plaintiff filed for Title II disability benefits alleging disability from January 16, 2009; date last insured was September 30, 2014; claim denied administratively and after hearing.
Diagnoses in the record included degenerative disc disease (low back pain), arthritis, obesity, anxiety/depression, and carpal tunnel syndrome; consultative exam and nerve conduction testing appear in the record.
Consultative examiner Dr. Cases Mayoral found some hand weakness and recommended avoiding repetitive hand motion; state agency reviewers (Drs. Queipo and Figueroa) opined light work with postural and manipulative limits.
ALJ found Plaintiff retained the RFC for light work with specific postural and manipulative limits (occasional right fingering, frequent left fingering, frequent handling), concluded Plaintiff could perform past work as a production assembler and other jobs, and denied benefits.
Appeals Council denied review; District Court reviewed for substantial evidence and affirmed the Commissioner’s decision.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Whether the ALJ improperly ignored Plaintiff’s complaints of disabling pain in assessing RFC	Nieves argued the ALJ failed to credit his subjective pain and thus understated limitations	Commissioner argued the ALJ considered pain but reasonably discounted it due to inconsistent testimony, sparse treatment history, and objective findings	Court held ALJ considered pain, reasonably found statements inconsistent with record, and RFC was supported by substantial evidence
2) Whether the ALJ erred by not consulting an independent medical expert before assessing RFC	Nieves claimed an ALJ (a layperson) cannot interpret raw medical data and needed an independent medical expert	Commissioner noted ALJ relied on consultative exam and state agency medical reviewers; RFC determination is the ALJ’s responsibility under the regulations	Court found the argument undeveloped (waived) and in any event ALJ relied on medical opinions and state reviewers, so no error
3) Whether the ALJ failed to account for Dr. Cases Mayoral’s hand limitations in hypotheticals to the vocational expert, producing error at steps 4 and 5	Nieves argued the ALJ ignored Dr. Cases Mayoral’s recommendation to avoid repetitive hand motion and omitted key limits in VE hypotheticals, so past work and other jobs findings are unsound	Commissioner argued the ALJ balanced Dr. Cases Mayoral’s findings with state agency reviews, included manipulative limits in the RFC and hypotheticals, and the VE testimony addressed those limits	Court held the ALJ adequately considered and reconciled the medical opinions, included manipulative restrictions in hypotheticals, and substantial evidence supports the step 4 and 5 findings

Key Cases Cited

Manso–Pizarro v. Secretary, 76 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 1996) (scope of district court review of ALJ’s legal standards and factual findings)
Nguyen v. Chater, 172 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 1999) (ALJ cannot ignore evidence or misapply law)
Visiting Nurse Ass’n Gregoria Auffant, Inc. v. Thompson, 447 F.3d 68 (1st Cir. 2006) (definition of substantial evidence)
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971) (substantial evidence standard in social security cases)
Purdy v. Berryhill, 887 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 2018) (substantial evidence review and Commissioner’s responsibility for credibility)
Rodriguez v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 647 F.2d 218 (1st Cir. 1981) (court must accept Commissioner’s findings if reasonable mind could)
Gordils v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 921 F.2d 327 (1st Cir. 1990) (ALJ not qualified to interpret raw medical data but may make common-sense functional judgments)
Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (1987) (claimant bears burden of proof through step four)
Arocho v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 670 F.2d 374 (1st Cir. 1982) (vocational expert testimony must be tied to a hypothetical that accurately describes claimant’s impairments)