Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Melendez v. Commissioner of SS, 97-1095 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 97-1095 Visitors: 3
Filed: Sep. 09, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: , Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Edna Rosario, Assistant, ______________ _____________, United States Attorney, and Donna McCarthy, Assistant Regional, _______________, Counsel, Social Security Administration, on brief for appellee. Claimant-appellant Gilberto Melendez, __________
USCA1 Opinion












[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________


No. 97-1095

GILBERTO MELENDEZ,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant, Appellee.

____________________


APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge] ___________________

____________________

Before

Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges. ______________

____________________

Melba N. Rivera-Camacho and Melba N. Rivera-Camacho & Assocs. on ________________________ __________________________________
brief for appellant.
Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Edna Rosario, Assistant ______________ _____________
United States Attorney, and Donna McCarthy, Assistant Regional _______________
Counsel, Social Security Administration, on brief for appellee.


____________________

September 3, 1997
____________________
















Per Curiam. Claimant-appellant Gilberto Melendez __________

appeals from a judgment of the district court affirming a

decision of the Commissioner of Social Security that Melendez

was not entitled to disability benefits. Having carefully

reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm

essentially for the reasons stated by the district court in

its opinion dated November 13, 1996. We are persuaded that

the hypothetical question posed to the Vocational Expert

("VE") was adequate under the particular circumstances of

this case. The VE's testimony indicates that he considered

all eight areas in which appellant was found to have moderate

mental limitations, though he did not recite each of these

areas. Finally, although the VE did mention some evidence

after the insured period, the VE relied on residual

functional capacity assessments for the critical period in

reaching his conclusion that appellant could perform past

jobs.

We add simply that, contrary to appellant's

suggestion, the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") was not

required to recite every piece of evidence that favored

appellant. See Stein v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 317, 319 (7th ___ _____ ________

Cir. 1992) (noting that the level of articulation required is

not precise). The ALJ's decision reveals that he considered

the evidence as a whole, and it indicates the path of his

reasoning. No more was required.



-2-













Affirmed. _________



















































-3-






Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer