Gonzalez v. Commissioner of ( 2000 )

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 00-1251
LUZ M. GONZALEZ,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Selya, Circuit Judge,
Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
Fabio A. Roman Garcia on brief for appellant.
Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Lilliam Mendoza Toro,
Assistant United States Attorney, Arthur J. Fried, General
Counsel, Robert J. Triba, Chief Counsel, and Maria A. Machin,
Assistant Regional Counsel, Social Security Administration, on
brief for appellee.
October 5, 2000
Per Curiam. The claimant, Luz M. Gonzalez, has
appealed from a district court judgment affirming a decision
of the Commissioner of Social Security that denied
Gonzalez's application for disability insurance benefits
under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. We
have carefully reviewed the parties' briefs and the record
on appeal. We affirm essentially for the reasons stated in
the district court's opinion, dated November 19, 1999. We
add only the following.
Gonzalez is mistaken in her contention that the
administrative law judge ("ALJ") omitted her limitation in
reaching with her right arm and shoulder from the
hypothetical presented to the vocational expert ("VE").
That limitation was contained in the hypothetical. Gonzalez
is similarly mistaken in her contention that the ALJ's
written decision ignored her limitation in reaching. The
ALJ mentioned, and indeed accepted, the opinions of two
physicians, each of whom had found Gonzalez to be limited in
reaching.
-2-
As for Gonzalez's citation to cases that conclude
that application of the age criteria of the "grid," see 20
C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt.P, app.2, § 200.00(d), is
inappropriate in "borderline" cases -- that is, cases
involving claimants whose age falls near the line between
two age categories -- that citation is misplaced. Unlike
the cases which Gonzalez cites, the ALJ in the instant case
did not find Gonzalez not disabled by reliance on the grid.
Rather, the ALJ sought, obtained, and relied on VE
testimony, using the grid only as a framework. Consistent
with the regulations, the ALJ made an individualized
determination of Gonzalez's abilities and limitations and,
thus, did not apply the age category in an inappropriate
mechanical fashion.
Affirmed.
-3-