November 15, 1993
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 93-1336
BENIS A. COLON MARTINEZ,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Cyr, Boudin and Stahl,
Circuit Judges.
Raymond Riveral Esteves and Juan A. Hernandez Rivera on
brief for appellant.
Charles E. Fitzwilliam, United States Attorney, Jose Vazquez
Garcia, Assistant U.S. Attorney, and Robert M. Peckrill,
Assistant Regional Counsel, Department of Health & Human Service,
on brief for appellee.
Per Curiam. We have carefully reviewed the parties'
briefs and the record on appeal. Although contrary evidence
was presented, we find that substantial evidence supports the
finding that the claimant retained the mental and physical
capacity to perform the easy to learn, routine, unskilled
jobs as determined by the Secretary. We affirm the judgment
of the district court substantially for the reasons stated in
the magistrate judge's opinion dated January 22, 1993, and
the district court's opinion dated March 8, 1993.
We add only the following comments. First, claimant
contends that the ALJ erred in finding that claimant's
condition does not qualify as a listed impairment pursuant to
20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, 12.05C (Mental
Retardation). Two examining psychologists did find that
claimant had a verbal IQ of 68. However, a verbal IQ of 68,
standing alone, does not rise to the level of severity
required to establish a disorder under section 12.05C. A
claimant at that IQ level must also show "a physical or other
mental impairment imposing additional and significant work-
related limitation of function." 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpt.
P, App. 1, 12.05C. Viewing the record as a whole, and
giving due weight to the ALJ's evaluation of witness'
credibility and to his resolution of conflicts in the medical
evidence, we find that substantial evidence supports the
conclusion that claimant did not establish that his hearing
-2-
impairment, and/or anxiety disorder imposes additional or
significant work-related limitations of function so as to
satisfy the second prong of section 12.05C.
Second, claimant's assertion that the ALJ disregarded
his subjective complaints of severe physical pain is belied
by the record. The ALJ properly considered not only
claimant's allegations of pain but his prior work record,
information from examining physicians and claimant's daily
activity. See Avery v. Secretary of Health & Human Services,
797 F.2d 19, 23 (1st Cir. 1986). On the basis of all
relevant evidence, the ALJ supportably found that there was
no indication that claimant suffered sufficient pain to
prevent or limit him from performing routine work activities,
provided that those activities did not involve working on
unprotected heights, being around moving machinery or being
in the presence of loud noises.
Affirmed.
-3-