Carrasquillo v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2005 )

Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
10-11-2005
Carrasquillo v. Comm Social Security
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-3579
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"Carrasquillo v. Comm Social Security" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 437.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/437
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
04-3579
____________
DINNA CARRASQUILLO,
Appellant
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
____________________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
____________________
(D.C. Civ. No. 02-cv-05125)
District Judge: The Honorable Joel A. Pisano
Argued May 27, 2005
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, ALITO, and GARTH, Circuit Judges
(Filed: October 11, 2005)
____________________
OPINION
____________________
Abraham S. Alter, Esq. (Argued)
Langton & Alter
2096 St Georges Avenue
P.O. Box 1798
Rahway, New Jersey 07065
Counsel for Appellant
Ellen Sovern, Esq. (Argued)
Special Assistant U.S. Attorney
Social Security Administration
Office of General Counsel
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 102798
Peter G. O’Malley, Esq.
Office of the United States Attorney
970 Broad Street, Room 700
Newark, New Jersey 07102
Counsel for Appellee
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from a District Court order affirming a final decision of the
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, which denied a claim for
Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). In this case, the ALJ followed the familiar five-
step process for evaluating disability claims and concluded that the claimant was not
disabled. The Appeals Counsel then denied the claimant’s request for review.
On appeal, the claimant first argues that the ALJ did not properly evaluate whether
she has an impairment or combination of impairments that meet or equal an impairment
listed in 20 CFR, Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. We disagree. As the ALJ correctly
2
observed, no treating or examining physician found impairments equivalent in severity to
the criteria of any listed impairment in Appendix 1. Moreover, the claimant does not
even argue that she meets or equals the requirements in any of the listings in Sections
1.00 or 4.00.
The claimant does assert that she meets the requirements of Section 12.04
(Affective Disorders) because she has “a major depression with recurrent psychosis.”
Appellant’s Br. at 14. While she cites some supporting evidence, she fails to address
other contradictory evidence supporting the ALJ’s conclusion that she did not meet listing
12.04. This evidence included Doctor Perdomo’s findings that the claimant’s thought
processes were focused and organized, that she was oriented and spoke relevantly, and
that her short- and long-term memories were good. Another physician, Doctor Medrano,
found that the claimant’s mental status was good, as was her ability to relate to and
socialize with other people, her ability to maintain concentration and attention, and her
memory. We conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s finding on
this point.
The claimant also contends that the ALJ did not properly find that she has the
residual functional capacity to perform medium work involving no more than simple,
repetitive tasks. Again, we must disagree. In reaching his conclusion, the ALJ discussed
and relied on both the medical and other evidence of record. The ALJ noted that the
claimant controlled her hypertension and chest pain with medication; that, despite a
3
hospitalization for “a typical chest pain” she had no abnormalities on examination; that
despite her complaints of back and leg pain, her back and hip x-rays were all normal; and
that no doctor had assessed any limitations on her ability to perform physical work-related
activities.
With regard to her ability to perform mental activities, the ALJ noted, among other
medical evidence, the positive assessments of Doctors Medrano and Dr. Perdomo. The
ALJ also noted that the findings of two state agency psychologists were consistent with
the conclusion that the claimant had the requisite mental and social skills to perform
competitive and remunerative unskilled labor. The state agency psychologists found that
she was not significantly limited in her ability to remember locations and procedures; to
understand, remember, and carry out very short and simple instructions; to work in
coordination with or proximity to other persons without being distracted by them; to make
simple work-related decisions; to interact appropriately with the general public; to ask
simple questions or request assistance; to accept instructions and respond appropriately to
criticism from supervisors; to get along with coworkers or peers without distracting them
or exhibiting behavioral extremes; to maintain socially appropriate behavior and adhere to
basic standards of neatness and cleanliness; and to be aware of normal hazards and take
appropriate precautions. We have considered all of the claimant’s arguments regarding
the ALJ’s finding regarding residual functional capacity and find no basis for reversal.
The claimant argues that the ALJ erred in finding that there were a significant
4
number of jobs in the national economy that she could perform. The claimant faults the
ALJ for relying on the Social Security Administration’s medical-vocational guidelines in
making this determination. We heard oral argument on this issue but held this appeal
pending the decision of another panel in Allen v. Barnhart, 417 F.3d 396 (3d Cir. 2005).
In light of that decision, we must reject the claimant’s argument.
We have considered all of the claimant’s arguments but find no basis for reversal.
For this reason, the order of the District Court is affirmed.