Melendez v. Commissioner of SS ( 1997 )


Menu:
  • [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
    No. 97-1095
    GILBERTO MELENDEZ,
    Plaintiff, Appellant,
    v.
    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.
    Melba  N. Rivera-Camacho and Melba N. Rivera-Camacho  & Assocs. on
    brief for appellant.
    Guillermo  Gil, United  States Attorney,  Edna  Rosario, Assistant
    United  States  Attorney,  and  Donna  McCarthy,   Assistant  Regional
    Counsel, Social Security Administration, on brief for appellee.
    September 3, 1997
    Per Curiam.   Claimant-appellant  Gilberto Melendez
    appeals from  a judgment  of the  district court  affirming a
    decision of the Commissioner of Social Security that Melendez
    was  not entitled to  disability benefits.   Having carefully
    reviewed  the record  and  the  parties'  briefs,  we  affirm
    essentially  for the reasons stated  by the district court in
    its opinion dated  November 13, 1996.  We  are persuaded that
    the  hypothetical question  posed  to  the Vocational  Expert
    ("VE")  was  adequate under  the particular  circumstances of
    this case.   The VE's testimony indicates that  he considered
    all eight areas in which appellant was found to have moderate
    mental limitations, though  he did not  recite each of  these
    areas.   Finally, although the  VE did mention  some evidence
    after  the  insured   period,  the  VE  relied   on  residual
    functional capacity  assessments for  the critical  period in
    reaching  his  conclusion that  appellant could  perform past
    jobs.
    We  add  simply   that,  contrary  to   appellant's
    suggestion,  the  Administrative Law  Judge  ("ALJ") was  not
    required  to  recite  every piece  of  evidence  that favored
    appellant.   See Stein  v. Sullivan, 
    966 F.2d 317
    ,  319 (7th
    Cir. 1992) (noting that the level of articulation required is
    not precise).  The ALJ's decision reveals that  he considered
    the evidence as  a whole,  and it indicates  the path of  his
    reasoning.  No more was required.
    -2-
    Affirmed.
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 97-1095

Filed Date: 9/9/1997

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021