Court Opinion

ID: 2964130
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:21:01.995449+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:51.265276
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          May 21, 1996
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-2168

                                FELIX GONZALEZ-ALEMAN,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                       SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                 [Hon. Jaime Pieras, Jr., Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                          __________________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Selya, Cyr and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Fabio A. Roman Garcia on brief for appellant.
            _____________________
            Guillermo Gil, United  States Attorney,  Rosa E.  Rodriguez-Velez,
            _____________                            ________________________
        Acting Chief  Civil Division,  Robert M. Peckrill,  Assistant Regional
                                       __________________
        Counsel, Social Security Administration, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.   Felix Gonzalez-Aleman  (claimant) appeals
                 ___________

            from a district  court judgment affirming  a decision of  the

            Secretary  of  Health  and  Human Services  finding  him  not

            disabled as of April 28, 1992.  For the following reasons, we

            vacate and remand.

                 On September 7,  1990, claimant was involved  in a motor

            vehicle accident and sustained  fractures of the pelvis, left

            hip,  left femur,  and  left ankle.    On October  25,  1990,

            claimant  applied  for disability  benefits alleging  that he

            could  not stand or  walk due  to these  fractures.   He also

            alleged that sitting  caused pain  in the  pelvic region  and

            hips.  The  Social Security Administration  denied claimant's

            application initially and on reconsideration.  

                 After a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found

            that claimant  was under a disability  beginning September 7,

            1990 and continuing through April 27, 1992.  However, the ALJ

            found   that  after  April   27,  1992,  claimant's  residual

            functional  capacity  increased  to  a  capacity  to  perform

            sedentary work.   Since  claimant's past  work  as a  machine

            operator  required more  than  sedentary  exertion,  the  ALJ

            determined that he could not perform this work.  The ALJ then

            proceeded to step  five of the sequential  analysis.  Relying

            on  the Grid,  the ALJ  found that  claimant is  not disabled

            because there is  a broad range of  unskilled, sedentary jobs

            existing in the national economy which he can perform.  

                                         -3-

                 The Appeals Council denied review.  Claimant appealed to

            the  district court which  affirmed the Secretary's decision.

            This appeal followed. 

                 Claimant  argues that the ALJ erred at step three of the

            sequential analysis  in not finding  that he met  or equalled

            Listed Impairment   1.03 (arthritis of a major weight-bearing

            joint), 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpt. P, App. 1.1  We  disagree.
                                                         1

            The  record  does  contain  some  evidence  of  arthritis  in

            claimant's left  ankle, as well as  significant limitation of

            movement  in  this  joint.    However,  although  the  record

            contains X-rays,  there is no indication  of gross anatomical

            deformity   of  a  hip  or  knee  as  required  by     1.03A.

            Similarly, it  does not appear that the  surgery performed on

            claimant's left leg satisfies    1.03B.  In any  event, given

                                
            ____________________

               1The following condition is listed at   1.03:
               1

                           Arthritis of a major weight-bearing joint (due
                      to any cause):

                           With  history of  persistent  joint  pain  and
                      stiffness with signs of marked limitation of motion
                      or abnormal motion of the affected joint on current
                      physical examination.  With:

                      A.   Gross  anatomical  deformity  of  hip  or knee
                      (e.g.  subluxation,  contracture,  bony or  fibrous
                      ankylosis, instability) supported by X-ray evidence
                      of  either  significant  joint  space  narrowing or
                      significant bony destruction and  markedly limiting
                      ability to walk and stand; or

                      B.   Reconstructive surgery or surgical arthrodesis
                      of a major weight-bearing  joint and return to full
                      weight-bearing  status did  not  occur, or  is  not
                      expected to occur, within 12 months of onset.

                                         -4-

            evidence in  the record  that claimant's fractures  are well-

            healed, that  he can walk or stand for up to three hours, and

            that he can carry up to thirty pounds, we think the ALJ could

            find that  claimant's condition neither met  nor equalled the

            listing.  We add that although claimant was continuing to see

            his orthopedic  surgeon, he  proffered no medical  opinion to

            support his claim that  he was still markedly limited  in his

            ability to  walk and  his leg  had not  yet returned to  full

            weight-bearing status.  See  Torres v. Secretary of Health  &
                                    ___  ______    ______________________

            Human Servs., 870  F.2d 742, 745  (1st Cir. 1989)  (observing
            ____________

            that  it is  the claimant's  burden to  show that  he has  an

            impairment that meets or equals a listing).

                 Similarly, we  reject claimant's  argument that  the ALJ

            could not  properly find  that his  condition improved.   The

            orthopedic  evaluations  by  examining  consultants  for  the

            Secretary  reflect steady  progress.   On  January 18,  1991,

            claimant  could not carry any  body weight, and  he could not

            stand or walk without the use of crutches.  On June 25, 1991,

            the femur  fracture was  still healing and  claimant required

            the  assistance of a  walker.  By  April 27,  1992, the femur

            fracture was well-healed.  Dr. Marrero, who examined claimant

            on  that  date,  completed  a  residual  functional  capacity

            assessment  (RFC) which amply  supports the  ALJ's conclusion

            that claimant has the exertional capacity for sedentary work.

                                         -5-

                 We  are,  however,  persuaded  that there  is  merit  to

            claimant's argument that the ALJ's determination at step five

            cannot be  upheld under the  "substantial evidence" standard.

            At this  stage in the sequential analysis,  the burden shifts

            to the Secretary  to prove that there  are sufficient numbers

            of jobs  in the national  economy that claimant  can perform.

            See Heggarty  v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 990, 995 (1st Cir. 1991).
            ___ ________     ________

            Where   claimant's   impairments   involve    only   strength

            limitations, the ALJ may rely on the Grid to meet its burden.

            Id.     However,   where   a  claimant   has   non-exertional
            ___

            impairments,  the  Grid   may  not  accurately   reflect  the

            availability of suitable jobs.  Id. 
                                            ___

                 Dr. Marrero's  RFC indicates that claimant  has a number

            of  non-exertional  limitations.     Most  notably,  the  RFC

            indicates that claimant can never climb and is limited in his

            ability  to  be  around  moving  machinery.    The  narrative

            comments do  not  further illuminate,  at least  for the  lay

            reader,  the   nature   or   extent   of   these   particular

            restrictions.  The ALJ does not mention these restrictions at

            all  in her decision.  Under the circumstances, this court is

            left without any basis for determining whether the claimant's

            non-exertional limitations are sufficiently minimal to permit

            the  ALJ to rely on  the Grid or  whether vocational evidence

            was required.  We  note that even sedentary work  may require

            the ability to  ascend or  descend stairs on  a daily  basis.

                                         -6-

            See SSR  85-15 (observing  that usual everyday  activities at
            ___

            work  include ascending or descending ramps or a few stairs).

            Moreover,   the  Secretary's   own  regulations   state  that

            approximately 85 percent of  unskilled, sedentary jobs are in

            the machine trades and benchwork occupational categories.  20

            C.F.R. Part 404, Subpt. P, App. 2,   201.00.  

                 Accordingly, a  remand is required for  further findings

            which  may in  turn require  the consideration  of vocational

            evidence.   In  light  of our  disposition  we leave  to  the

            secretary to consider  in the first  instance, to the  extent

            relevant, claimant's argument that  additional non-exertional

            limitations found  by Dr.  Marrero precluded reliance  on the

            Grid.   With  respect to  claimant's allegation  of disabling

            pain, however,  we note  that the  ALJ found  that claimant's

            "subjective symptomatology  does not significantly  affect or

            compromise  his ability to do  sedentary work."  Claimant has

            made no meaningful argument that this finding was in error.  

             

                 Vacated and remanded.
                 ____________________

                                         -7-