Court Opinion

ID: 2964404
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:25:08.693924+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:55.552841
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1283

                                 ANGEL M. DIAZ-ZAYAS,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                   COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                  [Hon. Carmen Consuelo Cerezo, U.S. District Judge]
                                                ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Paul Ramos Morales on brief for appellant.
            __________________
            Guillermo  Gil, United  States  Attorney, Charles  E. Fitzwilliam,
            ______________                            _______________________
        Assistant  United  States  Attorney,  and  Donna  McCarthy,  Assistant
                                                   _______________
        Regional   Counsel,  Social  Security  Administration,  on  brief  for
        appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                   December 3, 1996
                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.  Claimant-appellant Angel M. Diaz-Zayas
                      __________

            appeals  from a decision of  the district court affirming the

            decision  of  the  Secretary  of Health  and  Human  Services

            denying him social security disability benefits.  We affirm.

                      Appellant applied for disability insurance benefits

            alleging  disability since November 15, 1979 due to nerves, a

            heart  condition,  and  sinusitis.     After  a  hearing,  an

            Administrative Law  Judge (ALJ)  concluded that prior  to the

            expiration of his coverage--on March 31,  1983--appellant had

            preventricular  contractions,  sinusal  tachycardia,  chronic

            anxiety disorder, and  Ativan dependence.   These conditions,

            the ALJ found, were severe  but not equal to a listing.   The

            ALJ  also  found  that   appellant  possibly  had  occasional

            discomfort associated  to these  conditions, but that  he did

            not  have  disabling  physical   or  mental  distress  for  a

            continuous period of twelve months.  Based on these findings,

            and a finding  that appellant could  perform light work,  the

            ALJ concluded  that appellant was  not disabled prior  to the

            expiration of  his coverage  because he could  have performed

            his former jobs as a machine operator or production helper.

                      Appellant  does not  argue  that the  ALJ erred  in

            finding that he has the capacity for light work.  Instead, he

            argues  that   the  ALJ  erred  in   his  findings  regarding

            appellant's  mental condition.    We review  the  Secretary's

            decision under  a "substantial  evidence"  standard; we  will

            affirm that decision  if it is  supported by "'such  relevant

            evidence as  a reasonable  mind might accept  as adequate  to

            support a conclusion.'"  Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389,
                                     __________    _______

            401 (1971) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S.
                                _______________________    ____

            197,  229 (1938));  see  also Manso-Pizarro  v. Secretary  of
                                _________ _____________     _____________

            Health & Human Servs., 76 F.3d 15, 16 (1st Cir. 1996).  
            _____________________

                      Contrary to appellant's suggestion, the ALJ was not

            required to  accept  the opinion  of Dr.  Garcia Saliva  that

            appellant's  mental  condition  disabled  him  from  working.

            Assuming solely for the sake of argument that Dr. Garcia, who

            saw appellant  on only  one occasion, could  be considered  a

            treating  physician,  we  note  that  there  was  conflicting

            evidence  from other  treating sources  regarding appellant's

            ability  to  work.   Indeed,  appellant's  therapists at  the

            Mental  Health  Center  encouraged  him,  on  more  than  one

            occasion, to look for a job.  In any event, the determination

            of disability is reserved to the Secretary.   See 20 C.F.R.  
                                                          ___

            404.1527(e).    We think  the  ALJ  adequately explained  his

            reasons for finding that appellant's mental condition did not

            preclude him  from  performing his  past  jobs as  a  machine

            operator or production assistant.1
                                             1

                                
            ____________________

               1We add that it  is not obvious that Dr.  Garcia's opinion
               1
            is inconsistent  with this finding.   Dr. Garcia  opined that
            appellant  was  disabled  from performing  his  "usual work."
            Read in context, "usual work" appears to refer to appellant's
            past job as  a service  station attendant (the  only job  Dr.
            Garcia mentions).   Dr.  Garcia did not  specifically address
            whether appellant was able  to work as a machine  operator or

                                         -3-

                      Similarly, the  ALJ was not required  to accept the

            diagnoses of schizophrenia made by Dr. Carlos J. Nogueras and

            Dr. Luis Lozada Rivera, or the more specific findings made by

            Dr.  Lozada regarding  appellant's mental impairment.   These

            diagnoses and findings were  made in 1992, approximately nine

            years  after appellant's  insurance  coverage  expired.   Cf.
                                                                      ___

            Deblois v. Secretary of  Health & Human Servs., 686  F.2d 76,
            _______    ___________________________________

            79  (1st Cir. 1982) (observing that a claimant has the burden

            of establishing that his mental impairment was of a disabling

            level of severity prior  to the expiration of  his coverage).

            There  is ample evidence in the record from both treating and

            non-treating  sources  to  support  the  ALJ's  finding  that

            appellant  suffered from  an  anxiety  disorder--rather  than

            schizophrenia--during the  critical  period.   Moreover,  the

            only mental residual  functional capacity assessments in  the

            record  which focus on the  critical period support the ALJ's

            finding of no disability.

                      Affirmed.
                      ________

                                
            ____________________

            production helper.  

                                         -4-