Ribeiro 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Not For Publication in West's Federal Reporter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. 05-1011
BARRIE LYNN RIBEIRO,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
JO ANNE BARNHART, COMMISSIONER
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Boudin, Chief Judge,
Lynch and Lipez, Circuit Judges.
Michael J. Kelley on brief for appellant.
Mark T. Quinlivan, Assistant U.S. Attorney and Michael J.
Sullivan, United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
October 4, 2005
Per Curiam. After carefully considering the briefs and
record on appeal, we affirm the denial of disability benefits.
The central issue is whether the appellant showed that
her mental impairment satisfied the twelve-month duration
requirement. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii); Barnhart v. Walton,
535 U.S. 212 (2002); Seavey v. Barnhart, 276 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001).
Substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s conclusion that she did
not. Among other considerations, the appellant worked for most of
the period of alleged disability preceding the hearing, and
examining and reviewing sources concluded that treatment would be,
or had been, effective.
The appellant, who was represented by counsel at the
hearing, argues that the ALJ breached his duty to develop the
record by not requesting more information from a treating
physician. The appellant had the burden of producing the evidence
and proving impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 416.912. The ALJ had a duty
to “develop an adequate record from which a reasonable conclusion
can be drawn.” Carrillo Marin v. Sec’y Health & Human Serv., 758
F.2d 14, 17 (1st Cir. 1985). The appellant makes no showing,
however, that the duration of her impairment defied reasoned
evaluation on the record. Currier v. Sec’y Health, Ed. & Welfare,
612 F.2d 594 (1st Cir. 1980). Although her treating physician’s
report contained gaps, the extent of her impairment was not
undeveloped in the record as a whole. Moreover, in addition to the
-2-
aforementioned evidence, the ALJ could reasonably conclude that
requesting supplemental information would have provided little
insight. The appellant stated that she saw the physician only
intermittently, to update her medications, and the vocational
expert testified that the marked limitations posited by the
physician were inconsistent with the appellant’s job. 20 C.F.R. §
416.927(d)(2).
Affirmed. 1st Cir. R. 27(c).
-3-