Torres v. Commissioner of Social Security , 6 F. App'x 25 ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the First Circuit
    No. 00-1851
    JOSE A. TORRES,
    Plaintiff, Appellant,
    v.
    COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
    Defendant, Appellee.
    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
    [Hon. Carmen Consuelo Cerezo, U.S. District Judge]
    Before
    Lipez, Circuit Judge,
    Campbell and Cyr, Senior Circuit Judges.
    Melba N. Rivera-Camacho on brief for appellant.
    Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Lilliam Mendoza Toro,
    Assistant U.S. Attorney, and Robert J. Triba, Chief Counsel,
    Social Security Administration, on brief for appellee.
    March 22, 2001
    Per Curiam.         After carefully reviewing the briefs
    and record below, we affirm the Commissioner’s decision.
    The appellant raises issues on appeal that either
    pertain only to the district court’s decision or were not
    argued before the district court.             We will not consider such
    issues.     Manso-Pizarro        v. Secretary of Health and Human
    Services, 
    76 F.3d 15
    , 16 (1st Cir. 1996)(the decision will be
    upheld unless the Commissioner committed legal or factual
    error);    Groves    v.    Apfel,      
    148 F.3d 809
    ,   811   (7th   Cir.
    1998)(district court error is irrelevant); Evangelista v.
    Secretary of Health and Human Services, 
    826 F.2d 136
    , 144
    (1st Cir. 1987)(argument not raised in district court is
    forfeited).
    There was no inconsistency or error in the findings
    concerning the appellant’s ability to perform light work or
    the   application         of    the    Medical-Vocational         Guidelines
    (“Grid”).     The ALJ found that the appellant retained the
    strength    needed    to       perform    light     work.    20    C.F.R.   §
    404.1567.      Although          the     appellant    exhibited     certain
    nonexertional limitations, since the ALJ found that the
    limitations did not significantly compromise his ability to
    -2-
    perform the full range of light work, no vocational expert
    was   required.    Ortiz   v.    Secretary   of   Health    and   Human
    Services, 
    890 F.2d 520
    , 524-25 (1st Cir. 1989 (per curiam).
    The ALJ’s findings concerning the appellant’s pain
    and   psychological     status   were   supported   by     substantial
    evidence.    There may have been some contrary evidence, but
    the record as a whole was adequate to support the findings.
    Ward v. Commissioner of Social Security, 
    211 F.3d 652
    , 655
    (1st Cir. 2000); Rodriguez v. Secretary of Health and Human
    Services, 
    647 F.2d 218
    , 222 (1st Cir. 1981).
    Affirmed.    Loc. R. 27(c).
    -3-