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

Heading: Adjustment Disorder

Text: The issue concerning claimant's mental impairment is governed by our decision in Ortiz, in which we approved the use of the Grid in circumstances similar to the present case. There, we held that exclusive reliance upon the Grid is appropriate so long as the claimant's mental impairment does not interfere more than -7- marginally with the performance of the full range of unskilled work. Ortiz, 890 F.2d at 526. This determination involves the following two lines of inquiry: 1) whether a claimant can perform close to the full range of unskilled work, and 2) whether he can conform to the demands of a work setting, regardless of the skill level involved. Id. The Commissioner has described the mental demands of unskilled work as follows: the abilities (on a sustained basis) to understand, carry out, and remember simple instructions; to respond appropriately to supervision, coworkers, and usual work situations; and to deal with changes in a routine work setting. SSR 85-15, 1985 WL 56857, at . Conforming to the demands of a work setting involve getting to work regularly . . . and remaining in the workplace for a full day. Id. at . There is substantial evidence to support the ALJ's findings that claimant was alert, coherent, relevant, logical and oriented in the three spheres, able to understand and carry out instructions, had sustained attention and concentration, and could complete a normal work day and work week without undue interruptions. The only contrary evidence is the treating health center's report of diminished attention and concentration. However, the examining psychiatrist concluded that claimant's concentration was intact. [R]esolution of such conflicts in the evidence is for the [Commissioner]. Rodriguez Pagan, 819 F.2d at 3. Although the examining psychiatrist did not complete a mental -8- RFC form, that failure did not preclude the Commissioner from rendering common-sense judgments about functional capacity based on medical findings. Gordils, 921 F.2d at 329. On these facts, substantial evidence supports the conclusion that claimant's mental impairment does not interfere more than marginally with the performance of the full range of unskilled work. Ortiz, 890 F.2d at 526. Based on the foregoing, and according the appropriate deference to the Commissioner's decision, we find no error in the ALJ's treatment of claimant's subjective complaints of pain. The ALJ partially credited claimant's allegations of pain and discomfort related to his herniated disc, and determined that he could perform only light work. There is substantial evidence in the record to support the Commissioner's decision that nonexertional limitations imposed by claimant's pain and mental condition did not so significantly erode the occupational base that testimony of a vocational expert was required. Consequently, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. -9-