May 25, 1993
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 92-1897
CESAR RAMIREZ-MORALES,
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. Raymond L. Acosta, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Breyer, Chief Judge,
___________
Torruella and Cyr, Circuit Judges.
______________
____________________
Raymond Rivera Esteves and Juan A. Hernandez Rivera on brief for
______________________ _________________________
appellant.
Daniel F. Lopez Romo, United States Attorney, Jose Vazquez
_______________________ _____________
Garcia, Assistant United States Attorney, and Donna C. McCarthy,
______ __________________
Assistant Regional Counsel, Department of Health and Human Services,
on brief for appellee.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. We have carefully reviewed the record
__________
and conclude that substantial evidence supports the
Secretary's determination that claimant was not disabled when
his insured status expired, and that he retained, at that
time, the physical and mental abilities to perform a narrow
range of light, unskilled jobs such as those enumerated by
the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). We have considered all
of claimant's arguments and, finding them without merit,
affirm the judgment of the district court essentially on the
basis of the magistrate-judge's report as adopted by the
district court.
We add these comments. Claimant argues that the
hypothetical posed to the vocational expert was defective
because it did not include a non-exertional impairment that
the ALJ ultimately found the claimant to possess, namely an
inability to perform frequent stooping and bending. First,
________
light jobs require, at most, only occasional stooping.1
Frustaglia v. Secretary of HHS, 829 F.2d 192, 195 (1st Cir.
__________ _________________
1987). If a person can do some stooping and bending, which,
by implication, the ALJ found here, the "light occupational
base is virtually intact." Id. (quoting Social Security
___
Ruling 85-15). The narrowed list of light-work jobs which
the ALJ found claimant could perform are a sub-set of the
light occupational base which does not involve frequent
stooping. Cf. Social Security 85-15 (most medium, heavy and
___
____________________
1. Stooping is considered the least strenuous of the
bending postures, and involves bending the body from the
waist downward and forward. Social Security Ruling 85-15.
very heavy jobs require the ability to stoop frequently).
Thus, the frequent stooping restriction has little, if any,
relevance to the light occupational base.
Second, since claimant does not contest the light
work determination, per se, the no-frequent-stooping
restriction does not, as is argued, further limit the
narrowed range of specific light jobs the ALJ decided
claimant could do.2 Dr. Ortiz, a neurologist who performed
an examination for the Secretary, found that claimant could
occasionally stoop. Dr. Grovas, an orthopaedic surgeon
consulted by claimant, also determined that he could bend
occasionally. Thus, the ALJ's hypothetical, as delimited to
the range of light work, adequately took into account that
virtually all light work jobs require no more than occasional
stooping, an activity which, the uncontradicted evidence
shows, remained within claimant's residual capacity. See
___
Keating v. Secretary of HHS, 848 F.2d 271, 274 (1st Cir.
_______ _________________
1988). Moreover, the claimant had, but did not take
advantage of, the opportunity to pose his own hypothetical
and correct any perceived inadequacies. Torres v. Secretary
______ _________
of HHS, 870 F.2d 742, 746 (1st Cir. 1989).
______
____________________
2. And, the capacity for light unskilled work represents,
overall, a substantial vocational scope for a younger
individual (age 18-49) such as claimant who was 36 when his
insured status expired. Medical-Vocational Guidelines, 20
C.F.R. Part 404, Subpt. P, App. 2, 202.00 (g).
-3-
Finally, the ALJ did not, as claimant contends,
mechanically apply the rules of the Medical-Vocational
Guidelines, 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpt. P, App. 2 (the
"Grid"), to determine the availability of other work that
the claimant could still do. Ortiz v. Secretary of HHS, 890
_____ ________________
F.2d 520, 524 (1st Cir. 1989). After considering the
individualized evidence offered by a vocational expert, the
ALJ merely referred to a particular rule3 as a "framework",
i.e., additional support for the ultimate decision.
Claimant's assertion that the ALJ "disposed of" the case
using a Grid rule is simply incorrect. Nor does the record
indicate that the ALJ failed to consider the cumulative
effect of claimant's physical and mental impairments. The
ALJ's decision clearly manifests that both claimant's
physical and mental residual capacity were taken into account
in determining a narrowed light work occupational base, and
substantial evidence supports those predicate findings.
Affirmed.
________
____________________
3. The ALJ referred to Rule 202.21 which directs a
conclusion of "not disabled" for individuals like claimant:
younger, with a high school education and non-transferable
prior work skills.
-4-