Batista-Ramos v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 3:2008cv01085 - Document 13 (D.P.R. 2009)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 4 Complaint filed by Rafael A. Batista-Ramos. The Commissioner's determination is AFFIRMED. Signed by Chief Judge Jose A Fuste on 3/30/09.(mrj)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO RAFAEL A. BATISTA-RAMOS, Plaintiff, Civil No. 08-1085 (JAF) v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER 10 11 Plaintiff Rafael Batista-Ramos brings this petition under 42 12 U.S.C. § 405(g), asking that we reverse and set aside Defendant 13 Commissioner of Social Security s ( Commissioner ) decision not to 14 award Plaintiff social security disability benefits or, in the 15 alternative, remand for a rehearing. Docket No. 4. Defendant opposes. 16 Docket Nos. 9, 12. 17 I. 18 Factual and Procedural History 19 We derive the following facts from the parties filings, Docket 20 Nos. 4, 9, 12, and the transcript of the record in this case, Docket 21 No. 8. As Plaintiff has not filed a memorandum of law, despite our 22 order that he do so, we resolve this case without the benefit of his 23 legal arguments. 24 Plaintiff, a high-school graduate, previously worked in the 25 construction industry. Plaintiff applied for disability benefits on 26 February 6, 2003, alleging an inability to work beginning October 10, Civil No. 08-1085 (JAF) -2- 1 2002. Plaintiff claimed disability due to mental disorders and 2 intestinal 3 denied the application initially and again on reconsideration. On 4 March 5 Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ), which took place on November 14, 6 2006. On March 2, 2007, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was not disabled 7 during the relevant time period because he remained able to perform 8 work 9 Plaintiff subsequently sought review of the ALJ s decision with the 10 26, problems. 2004, existing in The Social Plaintiff Security requested significant numbers Administration a in hearing the ( SSA ) before national an economy. SSA Appeals Council, which declined review on November 16, 2007. 11 On January 18, 2008, Plaintiff filed the present action seeking 12 review of the ALJ s decision or, alternatively, a remand for a de- 13 novo hearing. Docket No. 4. Defendant filed a memorandum of law on 14 July 14, 2008. Docket No. 12. 15 II. 16 Analysis 17 As Plaintiff has provided no legal arguments in support of his 18 request for review, we necessarily limit our review to the question 19 of whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ s decision. 20 The Social Security Act (the Act ) provides that [t]he 21 findings of the Commissioner . . . as to any fact, if supported by 22 substantial evidence, shall be conclusive. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). We 23 must, therefore, uphold the decision if we determine that substantial 24 evidence supports it, even if we do not agree or would have reached Civil No. 08-1085 (JAF) -3- 1 a different conclusion had we reviewed the evidence de novo. Lizotte 2 v. Sec y of Health & Human Servs., 654 F.2d 127, 128 (1st Cir. 1981). 3 Substantial evidence exists if a reasonable mind, reviewing the 4 evidence in the record as a whole, could accept it as adequate to 5 support [the] conclusion. Irlanda Ortiz v. Sec'y of Health & Human 6 Servs., 955 F.2d 765, 769 (1st Cir. 1991) (internal quotation marks 7 omitted) (quoting Rodríguez v. Sec y of Health & Human Servs., 647 8 F.2d 218, 222 (1st Cir. 1981)). 9 An individual is disabled under the Act if he is unable to do 10 his previous work or, considering his age, education, and work 11 experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work 12 which exists in the national economy. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d). To make 13 this determination, the ALJ must consider all of the evidence in the 14 record. 15 [c]onflicts in the evidence are . . . for the [ALJ] - rather than 16 the courts - to resolve. Evangelista v. Sec y of Health & Human 17 Servs., 826 F.2d 136, 141 (1st Cir. 1987). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(3). Credibility issues and 18 We find that substantial evidence in the record supports the 19 ALJ s decision in this case. The ALJ considered progress notes from 20 Plaintiff s treatment at the Mario Canales Health Center from July 3, 21 2002, through August 20, 2005, showing that Plaintiff had reported 22 pain, vomiting, gastritis, fatigue, and shortness of breath. The 23 evaluating internist diagnosed Plaintiff with a malingering disorder 24 on December 20, 2004. Plaintiff underwent two gastroscopy reports Civil No. 08-1085 (JAF) -4- 1 with biopsies on June 15, 2004, and July 21, 2005, resulting in a 2 diagnosis 3 duodenitis. of a gastrointestinal reflux disease, a hernia, and 4 The ALJ also considered a psychiatric evaluation by Dr. José 5 Luis Galarza on November 6, 2003. Dr. Galarza observed that Plaintiff 6 was able to manage funds, could take care of his personal hygiene, 7 and was logical, coherent, and relevant. Dr. Galarza found that 8 Plaintiff 9 undifferentiated schizophrenia. Dr. Galarza stated that Plaintiff 10 appeared moderately depressed and diagnosed him with remained calm with prescribed medications. 11 In addition, the ALJ reviewed progress notes from Community 12 Cornerstone of Puerto Rico, Inc., for treatment between January 3, 13 2002, and August 18, 2006, which showed that Plaintiff was anxious 14 and fidgety, but on subsequent visits was calm and cooperative. He 15 was diagnosed with single episode major depression. Plaintiff was 16 hospitalized on January 26, 2005, for delirium, hallucinations, and 17 suicidal ideation, but his symptoms diminished and he became stable 18 with treatment and medication. The ALJ also considered a neurological 19 evaluation by Dr. Mayra Vera on April 10, 2006, which revealed no 20 significant abnormalities. 21 The ALJ took into consideration the State Agency psychologists 22 and psychiatrists evaluation of the record which found Plaintiff s 23 mental functional capacity to be, at worst, moderately limited in 24 eleven out of twenty categories, not significantly limited in eight Civil No. 08-1085 (JAF) -5- 1 categories, and markedly limited only in his ability to carry out 2 detailed instructions. 3 Finally, the ALJ also considered Plaintiff s testimony and 4 behavior at the hearing, and concluded that while the medical 5 evidence supported the symptoms alleged, the intensity, persistence, 6 and limiting effects alleged by Plaintiff were not credible. The ALJ 7 noted that there was nothing in the record indicating that Plaintiff 8 was disabled or had significant functional limitations. 9 The ALJ concluded that Plaintiff s condition limited his ability 10 to perform his past relevant work as a construction worker, but that 11 considering his age, education, work experience, residual functional 12 capacity, and all relevant symptoms, work existed in significant 13 numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform. As 14 examples, the ALJ listed jobs such as surveillance system monitor, 15 call out operator, and charge account clerk. As a result, the ALJ 16 found Plaintiff to be not disabled. 17 In light of the evidence in the record, the ALJ was justified in 18 reaching his conclusion that Plaintiff could perform work at all 19 physical exertional levels and that there were a significant number 20 of jobs available in the national economy that he could perform with 21 his 22 suggesting that Plaintiff was unable to perform such work; to the 23 contrary, substantial evidence supports a finding that he was not 24 disabled. emotional limitations. We find no evidence in the record Civil No. 08-1085 (JAF) -6- 1 III. 2 Conclusion 3 In accordance with the foregoing, we find that the ALJ s 4 disability determination was based on substantial evidence in the 5 record and from the hearing. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Consequently, we 6 hereby AFFIRM the Commissioner s determination and DENY Plaintiff s 7 petition, Docket No. 4. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 30th day of March, 2009. 10 11 12 s/José Antonio Fusté JOSE ANTONIO FUSTE Chief U.S. District Judge

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.