USCA1 Opinion
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
____________________
No. 94-1177
RUBEN RIVERA NEGRON,
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. Carmen Consuelo Cerezo, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________
Selya and Cyr, 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 Nancy B. Salafia,
_______ _________________
Assistant Regional Counsel, Department of Health and Human Services,
on brief for appellee.
____________________
August 31, 1994
____________________
Per Curiam. Claimant, Ruben Rivera-Negron,
__________
challenges the denial of disability benefits.
Mr. Rivera-Negron worked in various laborer and
carpentry jobs for many years in Puerto Rico and New York City.
He alleged an onset of disability in November, 1990, due to the
after effects of an undisplaced fracture of the big toe on his
left foot. He maintained that because of pain he was unable to
wear heavy shoes required on construction sites where he had
previously worked.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that "the
claimant did not have an impairment or combination of impairments
which . . . significantly limited his ability to perform basic
work-related activities." The ALJ, therefore, terminated the
review process at Step 2, or the severity stage, of the five-step
sequential inquiry. See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (1987).
___ ________________
The decision of the ALJ became the final decision of the
Secretary when the Appeals Council denied review. The claimant
appealed to the district court, which affirmed the decision of
the Secretary. We also affirm.
The claimant challenges the ALJ's finding of no
severe impairment. In essence, the claimant argues that the ALJ
erred in his application of the threshold test of medical
severity which was enunciated in McDonald v. Secretary of Health
_______________________________
and Human Services, 795 F.2d 1118 (1st Cir. 1986). In McDonald,
___________________ _________
this court held that the Step 2 severity test is justified as a
-2-
de minimis screening policy and that the Secretary is not
precluded from implementing a threshold test of medical severity
to screen out claims that would clearly be disallowed even if
vocational factors were considered. Id. at 1121-1126. See also
__ ___ ____
Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (1987).
________________
The State Insurance Fund concluded claimant had
suffered a "[l]oss of 50% of the GPF [general physical
functioning] due to a loss of the large toe in the left foot-
secondary articulation." However, an examination several months
later in July 1991 found no remaining abnormality in the toe, no
redness or swelling, and full range of motion. Notwithstanding
claimant's complaints of cramps, pain and an inability to
tolerate heavy shoes or work boots, the doctor concluded no
treatment was merited. The ALJ found claimant unpersuasive
regarding his inability to wear heavy shoes, and gave weight to
the medical evidence indicating no loss of motion or other signs
of abnormality in the toe. In view of the July 1991 medical
reports and claimant's sparse treatment history, the ALJ's
findings are justified and adequately supported by the record.
For the foregoing reasons, we find substantial
evidence to support the Secretary's determination that the
claimant does not have any impairment or combination of
impairments which significantly limits his ability to perform
basic work-related activities. We conclude that review was
appropriately terminated at the Step 2 severity level. We have
-3-
considered all of claimant's arguments and have found them to be
without merit.
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27.1.
________ ___
-4-