Larck v. Barnhart , 110 F. App'x 146 ( 2004 )

Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 04-1245
DANNIE LARCK,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
JOANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. John A. Woodcock, Jr., U.S. District Judge]
Before
Boudin, Chief Judge,
Torruella and Lynch, Circuit Judges,
Francis M. Jackson and Jackson & MacNichol, on brief for
appellant.
Paula Silsby, United States Attorney, Robert J. Triba,
Regional Chief Counsel, Social Security Administration, and
Eskunder R.T. Boyd, Special Assistant to the U.S. Attorney, Social
Security Administration, on brief for appellee.
October 14, 2004
Per Curiam. Claimant Dannie Larck appeals from a decision
of the district court upholding the Commissioner's denial of
disability and disability insurance benefits under the Social
Security Act. After carefully reviewing the briefs and record
below, we affirm the Commissioner's decision, essentially for the
reasons set out in the Magistrate Judge's October 31, 2003, Report
and Recommendation. We add only that, contrary to claimant's
contention, neither Dr. Graf's opinion that claimant's impairment
was equivalent to a listed impairment, see 20 C.F.R. Part 404,
Subpart P, Appendix 1, nor Dr. Holzaepfel's finding that claimant
could lift no more than ten pounds are entitled to controlling
weight. Both of the cited conclusions are plainly inconsistent
with or unsupported by contemporaneous findings made by the same
and other physicians. Cf. Prince v. Bowen, 894 F.2d 283, 285-86
(8th Cir. 1990). The Commissioner's findings are supported by
substantial evidence.
In light of our conclusion, we find it unnecessary to address
the Commissioner's contention that claimant's amendment of the
alleged onset date limited the period under review to a single day.
We also decline to address claimant's arguments concerning the
appropriate weight to afford disability determinations of other
agencies, as this argument was not presented to the district court.
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27(c).
-2-