Poissant v. Barnhart , 74 F. App'x 72 ( 2003 )

Not For Publication in West's Federal Reporter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. 02-2674
RICHARD J. POISSANT,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
JO ANNE BARNHART,
COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Lynch, Circuit Judge,
Campbell and Stahl, Senior Circuit Judges.
Michael James Kelley on brief for appellant.
Michael J. Sullivan, United States Attorney, Lisa De Soto,
General Counsel, Robert J. Triba, Chief Counsel, María A. Machín,
Assistant Regional Counsel, and Rayford A. Farquhar, Assistant U.S.
Attorney, on brief for appellee.
August 28, 2003
Per Curiam. Claimant Richard J. Poissant has appealed a
district court judgment affirming the decision of the Commissioner
of Health and Human Services ("Commissioner") which denied the
claimant's applications for disability insurance benefits and
supplemental security income payments. The claimant's only
argument on appeal is that the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ")
failed to sufficiently support his finding that the claimant's
subjective complaints of pain were "not entirely credible." One of
the reasons the ALJ partially discounted the claimant's testimony
was because of "discrepancies between the claimant's assertions and
information contained in the documentary reports." While a more
detailed explanation of the discrepancies would have been
preferable, see Frustaglia v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs.,
829 F.2d 192, 195 (1st Cir. 1987), we have examined the record and
find substantial evidence to support the ALJ's finding of
discrepancies between the claimant's testimony and the objective
medical evidence. These discrepancies are significant and major.
They amply support the ALJ's conclusion that the claimant was not
entirely credible in respect to his subjective complaints of pain.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
-2-