Delgado v. Commissioner of ( 2000 )

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 00-1448
LUZ M. DELGADO,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Aida M. Delgado-Colón, U. S. Magistrate Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Boudin and Lipez, Circuit Judges.
Nestor Juan Rodriguez on brief for appellant.
Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Lilliam Mendoza Toro,
Assistant United States Attorney, and Robert M. Peckrill,
Assistant Regional Counsel, Social Security Administration, on
brief for appellee.
December 27, 2000
Per Curiam. Claimant-appellant Luz M. Delgado Lopez
appeals from a judgment of the district court upholding a
decision of the Commissioner denying her social security
disability benefits. Claimant argues that the
Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") failed to give proper
weight to the opinions of treating and examining sources,
failed to consider the record as a whole, and failed to
apply the correct Medical Vocational Guideline (or "Grid"
rule). Based on these arguments, claimant urges us to
reverse the judgment of the district court. In the
alternative, claimant requests that we vacate and remand for
a new determination by the Commissioner in light of
additional evidence.
Upon careful review of the briefs and record, we
reject the claimed errors in the ALJ's decision essentially
for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. 1 The
magistrate judge adequately addresses claimant's challenge
to the weighting of the evidence. Claimant's suggestion
that the ALJ failed to consider the evidence as a whole is
1
We note one correction. The ALJ found that claimant's
birth date is August 29, 1946, and claimant has not challenged
this finding on judicial review.
-2-
meritless. Claimant's contention that the ALJ failed to
apply the correct Grid rule is predicated on her argument
that the ALJ should have accepted the functional limitations
found by Dr. Marin. However, given that the ALJ was not
bound by Dr. Marin's findings, the argument fails.
We also reject claimant's request for a remand for
the taking of additional evidence. The controlling statute
provides in pertinent part that the court "may at any time
order additional evidence to be taken before the
Commissioner of Social Security, but only upon a showing
that there is new evidence which is material and that there
is good cause for the failure to incorporate such evidence
into the record in a prior proceedings." 42 U.S.C. §
405(g). As explained below, we conclude that the proffered
evidence--a Certificate from the Puerto Rico Department of
Education and a Resolution from the Puerto Rico Industrial
Commission--fails to meet this standard.
The Certificate indicates that claimant did not
complete the requirements of a high school education,
contrary to the finding of the ALJ. However, given the
ALJ's finding that claimant is capable of light work and was
a younger individual at the relevant time, the Grid rules
direct a finding of not disabled regardless of claimant's
-3-
educational level. Under the circumstances, the Certificate
is not material. See Evangelista v. Secretary of Health &
Human Servs., 703 F.2d 24, 27 (1 st Cir. 1987) (explaining
that evidence is material only if, were the proposed new
evidence to be considered, the Secretary's decision might
reasonably have been different).
Claimant makes no effort to spell out, in any
detail, the significance of the Resolution. The Resolution
contains no first hand medical evidence, but rather
references a magnetic resonance scan ("MRI") apparently
administered to claimant at her personal physician's request
in 1996 (while the case was pending before the agency).
Claimant does not proffer a copy of the MRI, and its
significance is not entirely clear. Assuming for the sake
of argument that the MRI is favorable to claimant, she has
failed to demonstrate good cause for the failure to
incorporate it into prior proceedings.
Affirmed.
-4-