995 F. Supp. 2d 53
D.P.R.2014Background
- Plaintiff filed a petition for judicial review on August 10, 2012 challenging the final SSA decision denying disability benefits.
- The Commissioner’s final decision found plaintiff not disabled from Sept. 17, 2003 to Dec. 31, 2007, the date last insured.
- Remand occurred following Appeals Council directive after evaluating a treating-physician form and potential manipulative limitations.
- ALJ found through remand period (May 4, 2010) that plaintiff had severe mental impairments and could perform a full range of work with non-exertional limitations.
- ALJ used the Medical-Vocational Guidelines as a framework (Grid) to assess disability, concluding there were jobs plaintiff could perform in the national economy.
- Judge affirmatively concluded the final decision complied with substantial evidence and denied disability benefits on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Grid framework adequately accommodated non-exertional limitations. | Plaintiff argues significant non-exertional limits require vocational expert input. | Defendant contends Grid framework was appropriate as a framework, not a sole determiner. | GRID framework applied as framework; no reversible error based on non-exertional limits. |
| Weight given to treating physician Crespo-Rafols’ opinion. | Plaintiff asserts treating physician opinions should be given controlling weight. | ALJ found treating opinions not well supported and weighed more heavily the state agency experts. | ALJ’s weighing of treating versus non-treating opinions sustained by substantial evidence. |
| Whether carpal tunnel syndrome was properly deemed non-severe. | Carpal tunnel syndrome should have more substantial impact on RFC. | Record showed mild or non-severe status; no significant manipulative restrictions established. | Carpal tunnel deemed non-severe; no error in residual functional capacity assessment. |
| Whether the ALJ adequately explained the weight of medical evidence from treating vs non-treating sources. | Plaintiff argues the reasons for discounting treating sources were insufficient. | ALJ provided substantial rationale consistent with evidence and case law. | ALJ provided adequate rationale; substantial evidence supports decision. |
| Was a vocational expert required at step five given significant non-exertional impairments? | Plaintiff urges VE testimony was necessary to define erosion of occupational base. | VE testimony not required where Grid framework remains applicable. | No VE needed; Grid framework supported decision given residual functional capacity and vocational profile. |
Key Cases Cited
- Evangelista v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 826 F.2d 136 (1st Cir.1987) (substantial evidence standard applied to disability determinations)
- Manso-Pizarro v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 76 F.3d 15 (1st Cir.1996) (burden shifting at step four; claimant must show inability to perform past work)
- Ortiz v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 890 F.2d 520 (1st Cir.1989) (Grid framework; nonexertional limits as framework for decision)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S.1961) (substantial evidence standard; employer/agency fact-finding reviewed for support)
- Barrientos v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 820 F.2d 1 (1st Cir.1987) (treating physician weight not automatic; weigh against evidence in record)