Benetti v. Barnhart

Not For Publication in West's Federal Reporter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. 05-2890
PEDRO L. BENETTI,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
JO ANNE BARNHART,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Daniel R. Domínguez, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Selya, Circuit Judge,
Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Lipez, Circuit Judge.
Ramon H. Rivera-Sanchez on brief for appellant.
Jason W. Valencia, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, H.S.
Garcia, United States Attorney, and Katherine Gonzales Valentin,
Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.
September 6, 2006
Per Curiam. After carefully considering the briefs and
record on appeal, we affirm the Commissioner’s decision.
We review the ALJ’s decision under the same standard as
the district court to ensure that it was rendered under the proper
legal standards and supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g); Seavey v. Barnhart, 276 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001). We will
not consider new evidence not presented to the Commissioner. See
Mills v. Apfel, 244 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001).
Although the appellant suffered pain, the ALJ could
reasonably find that it was less severe than alleged. Among other
factors, one provider’s report of substantial limitation was
contradicted by other providers’ and reviewers’ reports of less
extreme debility. The record as a whole provided substantial
evidence for the ALJ’s finding. Avery v. Sec’y Health & Human
Servs., 797 F.2d 19 (1st Cir. 1986). The ALJ’s resolution of
evidentiary conflicts must be upheld if supported by substantial
evidence, even if contrary results might have been tenable also.
Rodriguez Pagan v. Sec’y Health & Human Servs., 819 F.2d 1 (1st Cir.
1987).
The appellant’s remaining arguments are unavailing. The
record contained ample evidence of the appellant’s capacities. The
ALJ did not interpret raw medical data or substitute his opinion
for the professionals’. Despite other ambiguities, the vocational
expert clearly rendered the opinion that substantial work was
-2-
available, given the appellant’s exertional limitations and need
for a sit/stand option.
Affirmed. 1st Cir. R. 27(c).
-3-