Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 04-1333
RAMONITA MEDINA-PEREZ,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. José Antonio Fusté, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Selya, Lynch and Lipez,
Circuit Judges.
Melba N. Rivera-Camacho on brief for appellant.
H.S. Garcia, United States Attorney, Lisa E. Bhatia, Assistant
U.S. Attorney, and Nancy B. Salafia, Assistant Regional Counsel,
Social Security Administration, on brief for appellee.
October 29, 2004
Per Curiam. Claimant Ramonita Medina-Perez has appealed
a district court judgment affirming the decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security which denied her application for
disability insurance benefits. We affirm.
Claimant first argues that the Administrative Law Judge
("ALJ") failed to properly assess her credibility and did not
sufficiently support his finding that the claimant's subjective
complaints of pain were "not totally credible." One of the reasons
the ALJ partially discounted the claimant's testimony was because
"the claimant's description of her limitations impresses as
inconsistent with the record when considered in its entirety." We
have examined the record and find substantial evidence to support
the ALJ's finding of discrepancies between the claimant's testimony
and the objective medical evidence. These discrepancies amply
support the ALJ's conclusion that the claimant was not totally
credible in respect to her subjective complaints of pain.
Claimant next argues that the ALJ did not properly
consider the medical evidence and substituted his opinion for those
of the physicians on record. We find claimant's argument without
merit.
Finally, claimant argues that the ALJ did not account for
the non-exertional limitations caused by her herniated discs,
carpal tunnel syndrome, and mental disorder. The ALJ, however, did
take her non-exertional limitations into account in finding that
-2-
she was limited to a "narrow range" of light work. Moreover, these
findings have substantial support in the record.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 1st
Cir. R. 27(c).
-3-