Martin v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 02-1187
DONALD L. MARTIN,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr., U.S. District Judge]
Before
Boudin, Chief Judge,
Torruella and Lipez, Circuit Judges.
Donald L. Martin on brief for appellant.
Thomas P. Colantuono, United States Attorney, David L.
Broderick, Assistant United States Attorney, Robert J. Triba,
Regional Chief Counsel, and Joseph E. Dunn, Assistant Regional
Counsel, Social Security Administration, on brief for appellee.
October 18, 2002
Per Curiam. Claimant Donald L. Martin appeals the
denial of his application for disability benefits by the
Commissioner of Social Security. After carefully reviewing the
parties' briefs and the record, we find that there is
conflicting evidence in the record concerning the impact of
claimant's mental impairments on his ability to engage in work-
related activities. Such conflicts are for the Commissioner to
resolve, not the courts. See Rodriguez v. Secretary of Health
and Human Services, 647 F.2d 218, 222 (1st Cir. 1981).
In particular, the residual functional capacity
assessments completed during the relevant time period (prior to
the expiration of claimant's insured status on December 31,
1998) fully support the hypothetical that the administrative
law judge (ALJ) posed to the vocational expert (VE). Based on
this hypothetical, the VE listed specific jobs in the national
economy which claimant could perform. Claimant's arguments
that the ALJ interpreted raw medical data, ignored the
diagnosis of Dr. Jenkusky, gave undue weight to the opinions of
social worker John Moran, and did not fully consider all of
claimant's impairments simply are without merit.
Claimant's other arguments also fail. First, the
district court had no jurisdiction to review the denial of
benefits which had occurred at the initial review. Simply,
this denial was not the "final" decision of the Commissioner.
-2-
See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (judicial review is limited to "any
final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security made
after a hearing"). See also Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 107
(2000) (where the Appeals Council denies review, as here, "the
ALJ's opinion becomes the final decision").
Second, claimant's argument that only medical doctors
are permitted to perform initial reviews is meritless. That
is, the regulations specifically state that such reviews should
be performed by qualified psychologists. See, e.g., 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1615(d) (an initial decision concerning disability in a
case where there is a mental impairment, "will be made only
after every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that a
qualified psychiatrist or psychologist has completed the
medical portion of the case review and any applicable residual
functional capacity assessment). Claimant does not dispute
that the two psychologists who reviewed his records were
qualified.
Finally, the district court did not err in denying
counsel's motion to withdraw. That is, both sides had filed
their memoranda in opposition to and in support of the
Commissioner's decision when the motion was filed. Thus, the
motion arguably was late. In any event, and contrary to
claimant's position, the court did allow claimant to file
pleadings, and the court did rule on these pleadings. As a
-3-
result, claimant essentially was permitted to represent
himself.
Affirmed. See Local Rule 27(c).
-4-