Sansone v. United States Railroad Retirement Board , 159 F. App'x 210 ( 2005 )

Not For Publication in West's Federal Reporter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. 05-1643
ANTHONY J. SANSONE,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD,
Respondent.
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A DECISION OF
THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD
Before
Boudin, Chief Judge,
Stahl, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
Anthony J. Sansone on brief pro se.
Marguerite P. Dadabo, Assistant General Counsel, and Kelli
D. Johnson, General Attorney, on brief for respondent.
December 28, 2005
Per Curiam. Pro se petitioner Anthony Sansone petitions
for review of the decision of the Railroad Retirement Board (Board)
finding that he is not disabled and is not, therefore, entitled to
a disability annuity under the Railroad Retirement Act, 45 U.S.C.
§ 231a(a)(1)(v). For the reasons explained below, we deny
petitioner's petition.
In his petition for judicial review and brief, petitioner
does not identify any specific errors of fact or law in the Board's
decision. Nevertheless, we have reviewed the certified record in
detail in order to determine whether substantial evidence exists to
support the hearing officer's findings, and to ensure that there is
no error of law.1 45 U.S.C. § 355(f). Substantial evidence is
"such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S.
389, 399 (1971) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB. 305 U.S.
197, 229 (1938)).
Substantial evidence supports the hearings officer's
determination that petitioner's impairments do not render him
unable to engage in any regular employment within the meaning of 45
U.S.C. § 231a(a)(1)(v), and that he retains the residual functional
capacity to perform sedentary clerical work. Petitioner's treating
1
Because the Board affirmed and adopted the hearings
officer's decision, on appeal we evaluate the judgment of the
hearings officer. Dray v. Railroad Retirement Board, 10 F.3d 1206,
1210 (7th Cir. 1993) (unpublished table decision) (citing Hayes v.
Railroad Retirement Board, 966 F.2d 298, 302 (7th Cir. 1992)).
-2-
physicians assessed his limitations in different and conflicting
ways, one doctor finding petitioner totally impaired from walking
and standing and able to sit for only 1 to 2 hours at a time, for
example, while two others found no such limitations. The most
detailed and comprehensive assessment in the record, including the
only residual functional capacity assessment, was provided by the
Board's examining physician, who determined that petitioner could
sit six hours out of an eight hour day, and perform the tasks
associated with sedentary work. Conflicts in the medical evidence
are to be resolved by the hearings officer, not this Court on
review. Bowman v. Railroad Retirement Board, 952 F.2d 207, 211 (8th
Cir. 1991).
The hearings officer's determination also is supported by
petitioner's own testimony. Petitioner testified that he
experiences fatigue and does not move as quickly as he used to, but
he gets up every day, has his coffee and reads, takes public
transportation to the coffee shop to visit with friends, visits
with his family, watches some television and videos, and assists
with household chores such as vacuuming and washing pots and pans.
Petitioner also testified that he takes a walk every other day and
works out with three-pound dumbbells, and that he manages his
diabetes with oral medication and treats his occasional pain with
over-the-counter painkillers.
-3-
At the hearing, the vocational expert was impressed not
just with petitioner's work experience, but also with his attitude.
He offered his opinion, credited by the hearings officer, that
petitioner is an "impressive candidate with an advantage over a
typical 62 year-old in the labor market." Record at 11. Because
we find no error of law and conclude that "a reasonable mind,
reviewing the evidence in the record as a whole, could accept it as
adequate to support" the hearing's officer's conclusion, Rodriguez
v. Sec'y of Health & Human Services, 647 F.2d 218, 222 (1st Cir.
1981), we deny the petition for review.
-4-