Court Opinion

ID: 2965785
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:44:49.34656+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:32:57.341315
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
                 United States Court of Appeals
                     For the First Circuit

No. 98-1677

                        PATRICIA SKODRAS,

                      Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                v.

                        JOHN J. CALLAHAN,

                       Defendant, Appellee.

           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                 FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

        [Hon. Timothy M. Boudewyns, U.S. Magistrate Judge]

                              Before

                      Stahl, Circuit Judge,
                 Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
                   and Lipez, Circuit Judge.
                                

     
     
     Donna M. Nesselbush and Green, Greenberg & Nesselbush on brief
for appellant.
     Margaret E. Curran, United States Attorney, Michael P.
Iannotti, Assistant U.S. Attorney, and Wayne G. Lewis, Assistant
Regional Counsel, on brief for appellee.

March 25, 1999

                                
                                
                                        

            Per Curiam.    Claimant Patricia Skodras appeals from
    a district court judgment affirming the decision of the
    Commissioner of Social Security that she was not entitled to
    disability benefits.  We have carefully reviewed the record and
    claimant's contentions on appeal and conclude that the judgment
    must be affirmed essentially for the reasons stated in the
    February 26, 1998 Memorandum and Order of the magistrate judge. 
    We add only the following comments.
              Claimant's arguments that the administrative law
    judge (ALJ) ignored the opinions of her treating physicians and
    instead relied on his own lay opinion in determining that she
    was not disabled proceed on the assumption that to constitute
    "substantial gainful activity" for the purpose of deciding
    whether a claimant was disabled during a particular period,
    work performed during that period must have been executed on a
    full-time basis.  However, the Social Security regulations
    specifically state that "[y]our work may be substantial even if
    it is done on a part-time basis or if you do less, get paid
    less, or have less responsibility than when you worked before." 
    20 C.F.R. § 404.1572(a) (emphasis added).  Claimant has not
    adequately addressed this regulation.
              Once it is established that part-time work may
    constitute substantial gainful activity, it becomes obvious
    that the ALJ, in fact, relied on claimant's treating
    physician's opinions in making the determination that
    claimant's impairment had not lasted for a continuous period of
    not less than 12 months.  See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). 
    Specifically, the ALJ pointed to Dr. Shulman's opinion that as
    of April 28, 1994, claimant was capable of performing part-time
    work.  Indeed, claimant herself, on April 28, had stated that
    she was capable of returning to part-time work.  Finally, there
    was substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ's
    implicit conclusion that the part-time work claimant performed,
    in fact, constituted substantial gainful activity.  Claimant
    therefore did not meet her burden of showing that she was not
    engaged in substantial gainful activity during the time in
    question.  See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n.5 (1987). 
            Further, Dr. Shulman, in January 1994, had opined
    that claimant might be better off working.  This opinion, of
    course, implicitly assumes that claimant was well enough to
    tolerate work.  Finally, the RFC assessment completed in
    December 1993 is compatible with the conclusion that claimant
    could perform sedentary work as of that date.  Thus, there is
    evidence, that even prior to May 1994, claimant had the
    capacity to resume her former job on at least a part-time
    basis.  That Dr. Dec might have disagreed with these
    assessments is not dispositive since conflicts in the evidence
    are for the Commissioner, not the courts.  See Rodriguez v.
    Secretary of Health and Human Services, 647 F.2d 218, 222 (1stCir. 1981).
              The judgment of the district court is affirmed.  SeeLocal Rule 27.1.