Court Opinion

ID: 2964920
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:33:00.75589+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:37:26.353304
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1193

                                   ALBERTO NAZARIO,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                        HHS, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                  [Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Salvador Medina De La Cruz on brief for appellant.
            __________________________
            Guillermo  Gil,  United  States  Attorney,  Lilliam  Mendoza-Toro,
            ______________                              _____________________
        Assistant  United States  Attorney,  and  Wayne  G.  Lewis,  Assistant
                                                  ________________
        Regional  Counsel,  Social  Security  Administration,   on  brief  for
        appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                   October 29, 1997
                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.    Alberto Nazario  appeals  from  the
                      ___________

            district  court's  judgment  upholding  the   denial  of  his

            application  for Social Security  disability benefits  by the

            Commissioner of Social  Security.  After a  careful review of

            the record, we affirm.  In  this opinion, we address only the

            specific claims of error raised by Nazario on appeal.  

                      Nazario  contends,  first,  that  the  Commissioner

            should have found  him to be disabled on the  ground that his

            medical findings were "equal to" to the findings described in

            Listings  4.02B   and  6.02C.     We   find  his   contention

            unpersuasive,  however, because he  does not describe  -- and

            the record does  not disclose --  findings pertinent to  each

            criterion of  those Listings.   See Marciniak v.  Shalala, 49
                                            ___ _________     _______

            F.3d  1350, 1353  (8th Cir.  1995)  (a disability  claimant's

            failure to  show medical  findings equivalent  to all of  the
                                                              ___

            Listings  criteria  defeats a  claim of  medical equivalence)

            (citing Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990)).
                    ________    ______

                      Next,   Nazario   challenges   the   Commissioner's

            determination that  he could  perform  light exertional  work

            despite his impairments.   In particular, he  claims that the

            functional assessments relied on by the Commissioner were not

            substantial evidence in support of that determination because

            they did  not take into  account the results of  a subsequent

            kidney  biopsy report and because  some of them were rendered

            by  nonexamining physicians.    He  also  suggests  that  the

                                         -2-

            Commissioner could not determine  how serious his impairments

            were because  certain  medical  records  contained  illegible

            entries.  We conclude that these claims lack merit.  

                      It  is true  that  a residual  functional  capacity

            assessment  which does not  consider the full  medical record

            may  not  constitute  substantial evidence.    See  Frankl v.
                                                           ___  ______

            Shalala, 47 F.3d 935, 938 (8th Cir. 1995) (an agency residual
            _______

            functional capacity  form which  was not  based  on the  full

            medical record was not substantial evidence).  Here, however,

            the biopsy  report itself  stated that  the preoperative  and

            postoperative  diagnoses  were  the  "same,"  and  subsequent

            progress  notes   showed  no   change   in  Nazario's   renal

            insufficiency, which  was characterized  as "stable."   Given

            the lack of change in Nazario's diagnosis and  overall kidney

            condition, the functional assessments  in the record retained

            validity and so  constituted substantial evidence in  support

            of the Commissioner's decision that Nazario was not disabled.

            See Gordils v.  Secretary of Health  and Human Services,  921
            ___ _______     _______________________________________

            F.2d 327, 330  (1st Cir. 1990) (per curiam)  (taken together,

            the results of  a physical examination of the  claimant and a

            functional assessment made four months before the examination
                                                   ______

            constituted  substantial evidence in support of the denial of

            disability benefits since the examination showed no objective

            evidence of a disabling medical impairment).  

                                         -3-

                      Moreover, we have declined  to rule absolutely that

            the  opinions of  nonexamining  physicians cannot  constitute

            substantial evidence.   See Rose  v. Shalala, 34 F.3d  13, 18
                                    ___ ____     _______

            (1st Cir.  1994).   Together with  the supporting  functional

            assessment   by  a   consulting,   examining  physician   and

            supporting medical evidence in  the record, the  nonexamining

            physicians'  opinions in  this  case constituted  substantial

            evidence in support of the Commissioner's determination.  See
                                                                      ___

            Gordils,  supra.  Furthermore, the medical record overall was
            _______   _____

            legible and  adequately  disclosed the  status  of  Nazario's

            various physical impairments,  and so there is no  need for a

            remand.   Compare Manso-Pizarro  v. Secretary  of Health  and
                      _______ _____________     _________________________

            Human Services, 76  F.3d 15, 17 (1st Cir.  1996) (per curiam)
            ______________

            (remanding a case in which "non-trivial" parts of the medical

            record were illegible).  

                      Finally,  given his  nonexertional limitations  (in

            particular, an  anxiety  disorder), Nazario  objects  to  the

            Commissioner's reliance on  the Grid to  show that there  was

            work  in  the economy  which  he  could  perform despite  his

            exertional  limitations.     Because  there   is  substantial

            evidence  in the  record that  his nonexertional  limitations

            would not  significantly affect  his ability  to perform  the

            full  range of light work, we  conclude that the Commissioner

            could  rely on  the Grid  to support  her  determination that

            Nazario was not disabled.  See Heggarty v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d
                                       ___ ________    ________

                                         -4-

            990, 996 (1st Cir. 1991) (per curiam) (the Grid may be relied

            on  if  the  claimant's  nonexertional  impairment  does  not

            "significantly" affect his or her ability to perform the full

            range  of jobs at the appropriate exertional level) (citation

            omitted).

                      Affirmed.
                      _________

                                         -5-