Court Opinion

ID: 2964927
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:33:04.758894+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:02.909678
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

          No. 96-2318

                                  NICANOR BERMUDEZ,

                                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. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

               Juan Jose Rosario on brief for appellant.
               _________________
               Guillermo  Gil, United  States  Attorney,  Edna C.  Rosario-
               ______________                             _________________
          Munoz,  Assistant United  States Attorney,  and  Wayne G.  Lewis,
          _____                                            _______________
          Assistant Regional  Counsel, Social  Security Administration,  on
          brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                   October 24, 1997
                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.   This is  an  appeal from  a district
                      ___________

            court  judgment  affirming  a decision  of  the  Secretary of

            Health  and  Human  Services  denying  appellant's claim  for

            disability benefits.   The claim was filed  more than twenty-

            one years after  the alleged onset of  appellant's disability

            due to injuries  sustained in an automobile  accident shortly

            before  the  expiration  of his  insured  status.   Appellant

            alleged   a  continuous  disability  from  the  date  of  the

            accident, September  6, 1967  through February  3, 1989,  the

            date of his first  application for benefits.  The application

            was initially denied  by an Administrative Law  Judge ("ALJ")

            whose decision was affirmed by the Appeals Council.  The case

            was remanded to the Secretary by the district court, however,

            with  instructions   to  secure   an  expert   cardiologist's

            assessment of the extent and duration of appellant's injuries

            and functional limitations.  

                      On   remand,  after   considering  expert   medical

            evidence  and testimony, and reviewing the entire record, the

            ALJ1 concluded  that appellant's occupational  impairment did
               1

            not meet the  durational requirement of the statute.   See 42
                                                                   ___

                                
            ____________________

               1The ALJ to whom the remanded case was initially  assigned
               1
            passed away  after the  hearing.  A  second ALJ  reviewed the
            hearing tape, and the entire record, before issuing a lengthy
            and  detailed decision.   Appellant, who has  been vigorously
            represented   by    counsel   throughout,   has    filed   an
            "informational motion" objecting  to this decisional sequence
            for the first time on this appeal.   Construed as a motion to
            supplement appellant's brief and the  issues on appeal, it is
            denied. 
            ______

                                         -2-

            U.S.C.    423(d)(1)(A).  Appellant had to establish the onset

            of a disability before the  expiration of his insured status,

            which  precluded  all  substantial  gainful  activity  for  a

            continuous  period of not less  than twelve months.   Id.  An
                                                                  __

            expert   cardiologist  testified,   however,  that   although

            appellant's injuries  initially were  disabling, the  average

            recuperative period from the ensuing heart surgery, which was

            performed  in February,  1968,  was six  months.   After  six

            months, an average patient would  have been able to engage in

            sedentary work.   Whether  appellant had needed  a longer  or

            shorter  than  average  recuperative  period  could  not   be

            determined without contemporaneous medical evaluations. There

            were   no  contemporaneous   evaluations,  however,   because

            appellant did  not seek any  medical treatment  after he  was

            discharged  from the  hospital, on  or about  June  28, 1968,

            until shortly before he filed his application, nearly twenty-

            one  years  later.    Medical   tests  at  the  time  of  the

            application, the  expert opined, revealed  a lingering  heart

            condition  which,  nonetheless,  did not  preclude  sedentary

            work.

                         A review  of the  record by  this court  reveals

            substantial  evidence to  support  the Secretary's  decision.

            Appellant argues that  since his injuries prevented  him from

            resuming his  past relevant  work, the  regulatory burden  of

            going forward with the evidence  shifted to the Secretary  to

                                         -3-

            show that appellant could perform other jobs available in the

            national economy.  The rules regarding the burden of proof in

            Social  Security  cases,  however,  "resist translation  into

            absolutes."  Pelletier  v. Secretary, 525 F.2d  158, 161 (1st
                         _________     _________

            Cir.  1975) (observing  that flexibility is  required because

            Social Security cases  are not strictly adversarial).   Here,

            the  Secretary produced the best available evidence given the

            twenty-one year divide between appellant's relevant  physical

            condition  and  the Secretary's  first opportunity  to assess

            it.2    The  expert's testimony,  coupled  with  the negative
               2

            inference  that arose  from claimant's  failure  to seek  any

            medical  treatment in  the  interim,  see  Irlanda  Ortiz  v.
                                                  ___  ______________

            Secretary of HHS, 955  F.2d 765, 767 (1st Cir. 1991), and the
            ________________

            more current  assessments of appellant's heart  condition and

            physical  capacity,  constitutes  substantial  evidence.   In

            these circumstances, although  a different  inference may  be

            possible, the ALJ's choice among the competing inferences was

            a reasonable one.   See Rodriguez Pagan v.  Secretary of HHS,
                                ___ _______________     ________________

                                
            ____________________

               2Although appellant said  that once, in 1968,  he inquired
               2
            about applying for Social Security benefits and was dissuaded
            by an unidentified employee, this one inquiry, if it occurred
            at all, would not have alerted the Secretary to the existence
            of appellant's claim.  See  Schweiker v. Hansen, 450 U.S. 785
                                   ___  _________    ______
            (1981)  (affirming then prevailing rule that Secretary is not
            estopped  in such circumstances  from insisting on  a written
            application  "essential   to   the   honest   and   effective
            administration of the Social Security laws"); cf. 20 C.F.R.  
                                                          ___
            404.633  (1994) (requiring  detailed  proof  to  establish  a
            retroactive, "deemed,"  filing date  based on  misinformation
            allegedly provided by an employee after 1982).    

                                         -4-

            819 F.2d 1, 3  (1st Cir. 1987),  cert. denied, 484 U.S.  1012
                                             ____________

            (1988); Lizotte v.  Secretary of HHS, 654 F.2d  127, 128 (1st
                    _______     ________________

            Cir.  1981).  There  also was  no error  in the  finding that

            appellant failed to establish a medically determinable mental

            impairment prior  to the  expiration of  his insured  status.

            See Cruz  Rivera v. Secretary  of HHS, 818  F.2d 96,  97 (1st
            ___ ____________    _________________

            Cir.  1986), cert. denied,  479 U.S. 1042  (1987); Deblois v.
                         ____________                          _______

            Secretary of HHS, 686 F.2d 76, 78 (1st Cir. 1982).
            ________________

                      Accordingly, the judgment below is affirmed.
                                                         ________

                                         -5-