You are on page 1of 7

USCA1 Opinion

September 29, 1994


[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 94-1121
WAYNE I. CARTER,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
DONNA E. SHALALA, SECRETARY,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Robert W. Lovegreen, U.S. Magistrate Judge]
_____________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________
Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
______________
____________________

Moe Greenberg on brief for appellant.


_____________
Edwin J. Gale, United States Attorney, Stephanie S. Brow
_______________
___________________
Assistant United States Attorney, and Amy S. Knopf, Assistant Regio
____________
Counsel, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, on brief
appellee.
____________________
____________________

Per Curiam.
___________
district

court

Claimant

judgment that

Wayne

affirmed

Carter
a

appeals

decision of

a
the

Secretary of Health and Human Services denying Carter's claim


for

Social Security

Income

(SSI)

disabled

benefits.
June 1990

and

Carter
as a

Supplemental
claimed that

result of

Security
he

became

a right

leg injury

caused by a gunshot wound and a tendency to drink

"a bit too

much."

in

disability

Carter had previously been employed as a grill cook,

laborer, messenger, and maintenance worker, jobs which ranged


from

semi-skilled

light

Following a hearing before

work

to

unskilled

heavy

work.

an administrative law Judge (ALJ)

at

which Carter was represented by counsel, the ALJ issued a

decision

which ruled

that Carter was

not disabled

five of the sequential evaluation process.

at step

See Goodermote v.
___ __________

Secretary of Health and Human Services, 690 F. 2d 5, 6-7 (1st


______________________________________
Cir.

1982).

The ALJ

specifically found that Carter's right

leg injury imposed exertional limitations that prevented


from performing his past
Carter retained
perform

the

work.

However, he also

him

found that

the physical residual functional capacity to

full range

of sedentary

work.

The

ALJ also

determined that Carter's substance abuse did not constitute a


severe impairment.
he believed

Based in part on Carter's testimony

he physically could

do the sedentary

that

work that

the ALJ had described, the ALJ applied the Grid, Rules 201.25
(younger

individual, limited

semi-skilled

work

history

or less education,

where

the

skills

skilled or

were

not

transferable) and 201.26 (same findings where the skills were


transferable) to conclude that Carter

was not disabled.

The

district court

issued a

nineteen page memorandum

upholding the ALJ's decision.

This appeal followed.

We have thoroughly reviewed


the

parties contentions

the record and each of

on appeal.

We

agreement with

the thorough analysis of

We

the

add

only

contention
testimony

that

following

the

is not supported by

relied

heavily on

Dr.

identify any significant


with Carter's

by

that his

severe

find

ourselves in

the district court.

remarks.

ALJ erred

in concluding

and order

First,

relying

solely on

mental impairment

the record.

his

is not

The ALJ's decision

Sorrentino's report,

which did

vocational restrictions

mental condition.

Carter's

In fact,

not

associated

Dr. Sorrentino's

report contained several findings (e.g. "able to concentrate,


"continues
figures)

in

tasks,"

which

are wholly

perform basic mental


1521.

Second, we

testimony,

which

curtailed

his

limitations.

relationship
consistent

work activities.

with

with

indicated
alcohol
the

Carter's
Such

that

and

See 20 C.F.R.
___

Carter

cocaine

had

in

substance

and

conflicts and credibility

-3-

to
404.

on Carter's
considerably

consumption,

numerous conflicts
abuse

authority

an ability

think that the ALJ's reliance

supportable given
concerning

good

the

was

evidence

educational
judgments are

for

the Secretary

guessed.

to

See, e.g.
___ ____

Services, 955
________

resolve and

are

not to

F.2d 765, 769

Cir. 1987).

failure

to

Technique

cite
Form

Third,

(1st Cir. 1991);

have a

(PRTF)

where

this

829 F.2d

harm

Musika's

192, 195

from the

ALJ's

Psychiatric

consultant

non-severe.

fails, for the

Sorrentino's diagnosis
developmental reading

illiterate, there
range of

see no

Frustaglia v.
__________

Review

also

rated

Carter's claim

that

failed to give sufficient weight to his intellectual

limitations also
that Dr.

we

consultant

Carter's mental impairment


the ALJ

second-

Ortiz v. Secretary of Health and Human


_____
______________________________

Secretary of Health and Human Services,


________________________________________
(1st

be

ALJ specifically recognized


suggested

disorder.

are sufficient

work available

Subpart P, Appendix 2,

to him,
201.00(h).

that Carter
Even if

jobs within
see
___

may

Carter is

the sedentary

20 C.F.R.

In addition to

Part 404,
the Grid

Rules cited by the ALJ, Grid Rule 201.23 (younger individual,


illiterate, past

work unskilled) still directs

not

Finally, it

disabled.1

sufficiently identify the

is clear

a finding of

that Carter

did not

alcohol-treatment records that

he

____________________
1. Carter also argues that the ALJ erred by failing to have
the vocational expert testify about the impact that his
alcoholism, personality disorder, and learning disability had
on his ability to meet the mental/emotional demands of
competitive employment. While it is generally preferable for
an ALJ to take vocational evidence, see, e.g., Ortiz v.
___
____ _____
Secretary of Health and Human Services, 890 F.2d 520, 528
________________________________________
(1st Cir. 1989)("an ALJ should typically err on the side of
taking vocational evidence"), on this record application of
the Grid alone was supportable.
-4-

now

says

impairment.

were

essential to

an

evaluation

of his

mental

Where Carter was represented by counsel and had

ample opportunity

to submit this evidence

we see no cause for remand now.


the district court is affirmed.
________

to the Secretary,

Accordingly, the judgment of

-5-

You might also like