Opinion ID: 201334
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pain

Text: Pain may be a nonexertional factor to be considered in combination with exertional limitations as well as a separate or independent ground for disability. Gagnon v. Sec'y of HHS, 666 F.2d 662, 666 n.8 (1st Cir. 1981). Claimant suggests that limitations in his postural and manipulative functions (specifically, bending and reaching) caused by his pain symptoms significantly eroded the relevant occupational base. Substantial evidence supports the ALJ's determination that claimant's pain did not amount to a significant nonexertional impairment.3 The two RFCs reached different conclusions regarding how the medical findings translated into functional nonexertional limitations. The RFC prepared by the non-examining physician (non-examining RFC) reported that claimant could stoop occasionally, and that there were no limitations in claimant's reaching ability. The other RFC, prepared by an examining physician (examining RFC), reported that claimant could never stoop and that he could reach only occasionally. A bending restriction . . . constitutes a distinct nonexertional limitation. Ortiz, 890 F.2d at 525. The 3 In reaching this conclusion, we have not considered the medical report of treating physician Dr. Pagán, which was submitted to the Appeals Council, but not the ALJ. We may review the ALJ decision solely on the evidence presented to the ALJ. Mills v. Apfel, 244 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2001). -5- Commissioner has stated that [i]f a person can stoop occasionally . . . in order to lift objects, the sedentary and light occupational base is virtually intact. Social Security Ruling 8515, 1985 WL 56857, . Reaching is an activity required in almost all jobs. Significant limitations of reaching . . . may eliminate a large number of occupations a person could otherwise do. Id. The non-examining RFC was based on a review of the medical evidence and took claimant's allegations of pain into account. Its conclusion that claimant could bend occasionally is not inconsistent with the examining physicians' findings that he could bend forward only 30 or 45 degrees. See Ortiz, 890 F.2d at 525 (upholding an ALJ's finding that Ortiz's bending restriction did not significantly reduce his potential occupational base where bending range was limited to 30 to 40 degrees and RFC indicated that Ortiz was capable of occasional bending). The non-examining RFC's conclusion that claimant's reaching ability was not limited is supported by Dr. Babilonia's examination report, which indicated that claimant's joint movements in his shoulders were normal, that there was no significant inflammation or swelling of the joints, and that (other than in the dorsal spine area) his joints were normal. The examining RFC noted that its assessments were based on the patient's own reports that certain activities exacerbated his symptoms. Therefore, the ALJ was justified in giving less weight -6- to that RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3) (The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support an opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight will we give that opinion.). Although the two RFCs were inconsistent in certain respects, the medical evidence was largely consistent. Both consulting physicians found that claimant's ability to bend was limited (varying only from 30 degrees to 40 degrees). Conflicts in the evidence regarding the range of motion in claimant's left shoulder were for the Commissioner to resolve. See Rodriguez Pagan v. Sec'y of HHS, 819 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1987). We conclude that there is substantial evidence to support findings (i) that claimant was capable of at least occasional bending, and (ii) that his reaching abilities were not significantly limited by his pain. Therefore, there was substantial evidence to support the Commissioner's decision that these nonexertional limitations did not so significantly erode the occupational base as to require the testimony of a vocational expert.