Court Opinion

ID: 2965133
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:35:52.193789+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:03:23.711019
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1972

                                    PAMELA PIPER,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                           SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER,
                           SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

                   [Hon. Shane Devine, Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                       __________________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

            Jonathan P. Baird on brief for appellant.
            _________________
            Paul  M.  Gagnon,  United  States  Attorney,  David  L. Broderick,
            ________________                              ___________________
        Assistant  United States  Attorney,  and  Wayne  G.  Lewis,  Assistant
                                                  ________________
        Regional  Counsel,  Social  Security  Administration,  on  brief   for
        appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                  February 10, 1998
                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.  Pamela Piper, who suffers from urinary
                      __________

            incontinence and other impairments, appeals from the district

            court's  judgment upholding the denial of her application for

            Social  Security  benefits  by  the  Commissioner  of  Social

            Security.  After  a careful review of the  record, we affirm,

            essentially for  the reasons  given in  the district  court's

            opinion.  The  following addresses only the  most significant

            issue raised by appellant.  

                      Piper  objects  to the  hypothetical  posed  by the

            administrative law  judge  (ALJ) at  her disability  hearing.

            She contends that the ALJ  erred in postulating an individual

            who  needed to  use the  bathroom  "at will."   Although  the

            vocational  expert  (VE)  originally testified  that  such an

            individual could  perform certain  sedentary and  light jobs,

            the VE later clarified that the individual could not do so if

            the bathroom trips were "frequent,"  i.e., took place ten  or

            more times per eight-hour work  day in addition to breaks and

            lunch, or more than once  per hour in addition to  breaks and

            lunch.  In his opinion, the  ALJ used the ambiguous "at will"

            language in describing  Piper's limitations and did  not make

            an express finding  on the critical question  whether Piper's

            use of the  bathroom was frequent.  See  Ellison v. Sullivan,
                                                ___  _______    ________

            921 F.2d 816,  822 (8th Cir. 1990)  (an ALJ may not  ignore a

                                         -2-

            "critical  assumption"   underlying  a   vocational  expert's

            testimony).

                      Like the district  court, we conclude that  the ALJ

            implicitly  and supportably determined that Piper did not use

            the bathroom so frequently as to preclude employment.   Based

            on  her treatment  and  employment  history,  activities  and

            reported tendency  to exaggerate  her symptoms,  the ALJ  was

            warranted in concluding that her need for bathroom breaks was

            below the more  than one time  per hour figure  which the  VE

            said would compromise  her ability to work.  It was the ALJ's

            responsibility to determine issues of credibility and to draw

            inferences from the  record evidence.   See Irlanda Ortiz  v.
                                                    ___ _____________

            Secretary of Health & Human  Services, 955 F.2d 765, 769 (1st
            _____________________________________

            Cir.  1991) (given the  claimant's treatment history  and the

            medical evidence,  the ALJ did  not err in deciding  that the

            claimant's  complaints  were  not  credible  "to  the  extent

            alleged").  

                      Affirmed.
                      _________

                                         -3-