April 23, 1996
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 95-1791
ADRIAN GARCIA-MARTINEZ,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Jaime Pieras, Jr., U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
Raymond Rivera Esteves and Juan A. Hernandez Rivera on brief for
appellant.
Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Maria Hortensia Rios-
Gandara, Assistant United States Attorney, and Wayne G. Lewis,
Assistant Regional Counsel, Region I, Social Security Administration,
on brief for appellee.
Per Curiam. Claimant Adrian Garcia-Martinez
appeals from the district court judgment affirming the
decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services that
claimant is not entitled to Social Security disability
benefits. Claimant raises four arguments on appeal: (1) the
administrative law judge (ALJ) did not comply with the
Appeals Council's remand order to obtain more evidence
concerning the existence of a mental impairment; (2) the ALJ
erred in not crediting the opinion of claimant's treating
physician that claimant was completely disabled; (3) the
ALJ's finding that claimant could return to his past medium
work was unsupported by the record; and (4) the vocational
expert (VE) failed to take into consideration claimant's
limitations on his range of motion. We agree with the
district court's decision, adding the following points keyed
to claimant's arguments on appeal.
1. The ALJ obtained the services of a medical
advisor, a psychiatrist and neurologist, who reviewed the
entire record and observed claimant at the hearing. He
opined that claimant did not have a mental impairment. This
conclusion particularly was supported by claimant's response
to the question why he had stopped working. On two
occasions, claimant answered that his physical problems
prevented him from continuing with his employment. He never
referred to any emotional symptoms, much less described how
-2-
his mental condition affected his ability to engage in work-
related activities. See Santiago v. Secretary of Health and
Human Services, 944 F.2d 1, 5-7 (1st Cir. 1991) (per curiam)
(where the testimony and the evidence did not go far enough
to raise a "meaningful issue" in regard to how claimant's
impairments affected her ability to work, the ALJ had no duty
to further develop the record by obtaining residual
functional capacity assessments).
2. The ALJ did not err in not giving controlling
weight to the opinion of claimant's treating physician, Dr.
Martinez, that claimant was completely disabled. Given the
conflicting evidence, the ALJ was not required to accede to
the treating physician's opinion rather than the contrary
evidence of the medical advisor and to other evidence
supporting the latter's position. See Rodriguez Pagan v.
Secretary of Health and Human Services, 819 F.2d 1, 3 (1st
Cir. 1987) (per curiam), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1012 (1988).
3. The uncontradicted residual functional capacity
assessment of the medical advisor restricted claimant to
lifting 30 pounds; medium work involves the ability to lift
50 pounds. See 20 C.F.R. 404.1567(c). Consequently,
claimant cannot perform the full range of medium work.
However, the vocational expert not only opined that claimant
could perform his past, medium work as a groundskeeper, he
also listed light jobs that would be available to claimant.
-3-
Given that claimant can do some medium work, he is deemed to
be able to perform light work. Id. Thus, the Secretary
satisfied her burden, at step five of the sequential process,
to show that there was other work claimant could perform.
Id. 404.1520(f).
4. There was conflicting evidence concerning
claimant's range of motion (for example, Dr. Stella-Arrillaga
found no limitations). Thus, there is no basis for the
claimant's assertion that the vocational expert and ALJ
disregarded established limitations on claimant's range of
motion. The ALJ's decision must stand. See Rodriguez v.
Secretary of Health and Human Services, 647 F.2d 218, 222
(1st Cir. 1981) (conflicts in the evidence are for the
Secretary to resolve).
Affirmed.
-4-