Roberts v. Apfel ( 2000 )

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 00-1540
WILLIAM ROBERTS,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Ernest C. Torres, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
Maria Medeiros Wall on brief for appellant.
Margaret E. Curran, United States Attorney, Anthony C.
Digioia, Assistant United States Attorney, and Wayne G. Lewis,
Assistant Regional Counsel, Region I, Social Security
Administration, on brief for appellee.
December 28, 2000
Per Curiam. After carefully considering the
record and briefs on appeal, we affirm the Commissioner’s
decision for substantially the reasons developed below.
A few issues bear mention. The claimant argues
that he had a spinal disorder listed under 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404,
Subpt. P, App. 1, 1.05C (other vertebrogenic disorders). In
addition to a primary, vertebrogenic disorder, such a
disorder required the simultaneous presence, over a period
of at least three months, of pain, muscle spasm, and
significant limitation of motion in the spine; and an
appropriate radicular distribution of significant motor loss,
with muscle weakness and sensory and reflex loss. 20 C.F.R.
Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, 1.05C. Although the record
contains evidence that the claimant periodically displayed
such symptoms, it does not establish, or compel the
inference, that he possessed all of the symptoms
simultaneously and for the required period. The ALJ’s
finding, then, was supported by substantial evidence.
Rodriguez v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 647 F.2d
218, 222 (1st Cir. 1981)(substantial evidence may support a
finding even if the record contains evidence that would also
-2-
support a contrary finding, if a reasonable mind reviewing
the record as a whole could accept the evidence as confirming
the finding).
The claimant also argues that the Commissioner
should have given controlling or significant weight to his
treating physician’s opinion that he had the listed
condition. Such an opinion is not, however, a medical
opinion entitled to deference, but a conclusion on an issue
reserved for the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(e)(2).
Moreover, the opinion was at odds with other medical evidence
in the record, including the physician’s own findings. 20
C.F.R. 404.1527(d).
Finally, the claimant argues that the ALJ erred in
refusing to consider chiropractic records. The claimant
misreads the opinion. The ALJ stated only that he refused
to credit the chiropractor’s conclusion that the claimant was
totally disabled. Again, this issue is reserved for the
Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(e)(2). Moreover, as the
ALJ stated, the chiropractor’s opinion was not supported by
the record.
Affirmed. Loc. R. 27(c).
-3-