USCA1 Opinion
March 29, 1996
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 95-1795
BARBARA CONCEPCION-MORALES,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________
Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
______________
____________________
Juan A. Hernandez Rivera and Raymond Rivera Esteves on brief for
________________________ _______________________
appellant.
Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Maria Hortensia Rios-
______________ _______________________
Gandara, Assistant United States Attorney, and Sara Gardiner Kilkenny,
_______ ______________________
Attorney, Region I, Social Security Administration, on brief for
appellee.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. Claimant Jose Gonzalez appeals a district
__________
court order that upheld a decision by the Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration that denied claimant's
application for child's disability benefits. See 42 U.S.C.
___
402(d)(1). Claimant, who was 18 when he filed his initial
application, alleged that he suffered from disabling mental
retardation since birth.1 We have thoroughly reviewed the
1
record and the parties' briefs on appeal. We conclude that
the district court was correct in concluding that
Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence.
We add the following comments.
1. Claimant's contention that the record does not
support the ALJ's conclusion that he is able to work
independently without close supervision is belied by the fact
that claimant adduced no evidence to show that he required
__
special supervision to perform any of the part time jobs that
he had done in the past. To be sure, claimant's teachers
reported that he required "direct supervision" to perform and
complete tasks in the vocational soldering program in which
claimant was enrolled. But this does not establish that
____________________
1We note that the named plaintiff in this case is
1
claimant's mother, Barbara Concepcion-Morales. Claimant's
disability application was based on her earnings record, and
she completed the disability claim application forms on her
son's behalf. As claimant Gonzalez is the real party in
interest, we speak of him as the sole appellant.
claimant requires close supervision to perform simple
unskilled work.2
2
2. The ALJ implicitly relied on the Grid to find that
claimant was capable of the full range of skilled and
unskilled work at all exertional levels. See Ortiz v.
___ _____
Secretary of Health and Human Services, 890 F.2d 520, 524 n.
________________________________________
4 (1st Cir. 1989). This conclusion is supportable insofar as
it pertains to unskilled work. The evidence shows that
claimant had at most moderate limitations in his ability meet
the basic demands of unskilled work.3 While it would have
3
been preferable for the ALJ to have taken vocational
testimony, the record suggests that claimant's mild mental
retardation did not significantly diminish the base of
unskilled work that is otherwise available to claimant,
particularly given the fact that this claimant has no
__
exertional limitations.
3. Contrary to claimant's argument on appeal, the ALJ
did not impermissibly find that claimant's impairment was not
severe within the meaning of step two in contrast to the
____________________
2Similarly, while Dr. Cabiya reported that claimant's
2
ability to learn a simple repetitive task under close
to learn
supervision appeared appropriate, he did not say that close
supervision was required for claimant to continuously perform
simple unskilled jobs. The record suggests that this is not
the case.
3See SSR 85-15 (basic demands of unskilled work include
3___
ability to carry out simply instructions, to respond
appropriately to supervision and coworkers, and to deal with
changes in work setting).
-4-
opinions of the Commissioner's consultants. While the ALJ's
PRTF contained ratings that correspond with a non-severe
impairment, the remainder of the ALJ's opinion holds
otherwise. Under these circumstances, we disregard the ALJ's
contrary ratings. See Ortiz, 890 F.2d at 525 n. 6.
___ _____
Affirmed.
________
-5-
