Opinion ID: 782372
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Rejected claims.

Text: 8 We find four of Celaya's claims unpersuasive, but discuss them first as they introduce information that will prove essential to deciding her other two claims. 9 Celaya's argument that the ALJ failed to credit her doctor's statement that she could not work is unavailing. The statement — It is not clear to me whether she will be able to get her blood pressure under control, and perform gainful employment — prognosticated what would happen if her hypertension remained uncontrolled. However, Celaya's blood pressure was brought under control before the end of the one-year period required for automatic eligibility for benefits due to a listed disability, rendering the doctor's expressed concern moot. 10 Celaya argues that she should have qualified automatically for disability status based on her height and weight according to Listing 9.09 (20 C.F.R. Part 404 Appendix 1 to Subpart P, Listing of Impairments 61 Fed. Reg. 28,046-47 (1997)). The record was internally contradictory regarding her height. She argues that if her height had been found to be less than 57, her weight would have qualified her automatically for disability status even in the absence of any impairment. 1 Given that the 57 figure was the only one reflecting an actual measurement, however, the ALJ's reliance on it was supported by substantial evidence. If we accept the 57 figure, Celaya's weight was not consistently over the criterion level of 212 pounds for a one year period. Thus, the ALJ was correct that she did not qualify automatically as disabled absent any other impairments. 11 Celaya argues that the ALJ failed to make specific findings regarding her complaints of excess pain. But, she admitted to not being in continual pain, and the ALJ reasonably noted that the underlying complaints upon which her reports of pain were predicated had come under control. The ALJ's reasons for his credibility determination were clear and convincing, sufficiently specific, and supported by substantial evidence in the record. 12 Celaya also argues that the ALJ relied on evidence outside the record in determining that she could return to work. The district court agreed that the evidence, a December 1996 DDS Medical/Vocational Decision Guide was not in the record, but points to the PRFCA as providing the same information. 13