Court Opinion

ID: 2963930
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:17:37.708449+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:48.406188
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                           
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1851 

                               MATILDE VAZQUEZ-MORALES,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                           COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                   [Hon. Salvador E. Casellas, U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                            Selya and Cyr, Circuit Judges.
                                           ______________

                                 ____________________

            Raymond Rivera Esteves and  Juan A. Hernandez Rivera on brief  for
            ______________________      ________________________
        appellant.
            Guillermo  Gil,  United  States Attorney,  Maria  Hortensia  Rios-
            ______________                             _______________________
        Gandara,  Assistant  United  States  Attorney,  and  Wayne  G.  Lewis,
        _______                                              ________________
        Assistant  Regional Counsel, Social  Security Administration, on brief
        for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                  February 27, 1996
                                 ____________________

                                         -2-

                      Per  Curiam.  We have carefully reviewed the record
                      ___________

            on  appeal and  the parties'  briefs.   The  judgment of  the

            district court  is affirmed  for  the reasons  stated in  its

            order and in the report  and recommendation of the magistrate

            judge which the order adopted.  We add only two comments.  

                      1.  Claimant argues that the ALJ's finding that she

            can  walk and sit  for an hour  each day is  not supported by
                      ___

            substantial  evidence   because  the  Medical   Advisor  (MA)

            testified  to  the contrary  at  the hearing.    We disagree.

            Although the  MA first  stated that claimant  "must not  work

            standing or walking," he later clarified this by stating that

            she could spend, in an eight-hour day, "[o]ne hour walking or

            one hour standing."

                      Although confusing, it seems to us, first, that the

            MA's  bottom line is that claimant can walk and stand for one
                                                        ___

            hour  during an  eight hour  day.   We think  that claimant's

            focus on  the  use of  the word  "or" in  the  last quote  is

            hypertechnical.    Second,  there is  other  evidence  in the

            record -- the two residual functional capacity assessments --

            which  indicates that  claimant can  walk and  stand for  six
                                                                      ___

            hours  per working  day.    Finally,  claimant  submitted  no

            evidence of her  own to show the  impact of her condition  on

            her ability to function.

                      2.  In the same vein, claimant's assertion that the

            Vocational  Expert  (VE)  described  a  secretarial  job   as

                                         -2-

            requiring "indefinite" periods of walking and standing is not

            supported by the  record.  The VE was  describing the general

            requirements of such work and  was not assigning times to the

            various activities.

                      The judgment  of the  district  court is  affirmed.
                                                                ________

            See 1st Cir. R. 27.1.
            ___

                                         -3-