Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mosconas v. Saul

United States District Court, D. New Hampshire

October 7, 2019

Wendy Mosconas
v.
Andrew Saul,[1] Commissioner, Social Security Administration

          Wendy Mosconas, pro se

          Lisa G. Smoller, Esq.

          ORDER

          Paul J. Barbadoro United States District Judge

         Wendy Mosconas, who appears pro se, moves to reverse the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”), as announced by an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), to deny her application for supplemental security income, or SSI, under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1382. The Commissioner, in turn, moves for an order affirming his decision. For the reasons that follow, I affirm the Commissioner's decision.

         I. Scope of Review

         The scope of judicial review of the Commissioner's decision is as follows:

The [district] court shall have power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing. The findings of the Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive . . . .

42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (setting out standard of review for decisions on claims for DIB); see also 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3) (applying § 405(g) to SSI decisions). However, the court “must uphold a denial of social security disability benefits unless ‘the [Commissioner] has committed a legal or factual error in evaluating a particular claim.'” Manso-Pizarro v. Sec'y of HHS, 76 F.3d 15, 16 (1st Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (quoting Sullivan v. Hudson, 490 U.S. 877, 885 (1989)).

         II. Background

         Mosconas was born in 1971. She has worked as a stylist, as a waitress, as a bartender, and as a business owner/manager, but in the 15 years prior to the ALJ's decision, she did not perform any of those jobs at a level that qualifies as “substantial gainful activity” as that term is defined in the social security regulations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.910 & 416.972. When she applied for SSI, Mosconas was living in an encampment of homeless people.

         In June of 2015, Mosconas received a physical examination from Dr. Peter Loeser. He reported a chief complaint of lower abdominal pain and noted treatment for abdominal problems, and documentation thereof, dating to the 1990. He also reported:

Currently, the patient notes episodic mild to severe lower generalized abdominal/pelvic pain, which occurs immediately when upright (sitting/standing) and builds to a severe level after 2 hours. The patient notes almost immediate improvement of these symptoms with laying down.

         Administrative Transcript (hereinafter “Tr.”) 247. After examining Mosconas, Dr. Loeser reported “unremarkable” findings with respect to Mosconas's: head, ears, eyes, nose, throat, and neck; cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine; and lower extremities. With respect to Mosconas's lungs, cardiovascular system, and abdomen, Dr. Loeser found: “Abdomen with mild diffuse tenderness to palpation without rebound tenderness or guarding. Otherwise, unremarkable heart, lung, and abdominal examination.” Tr. 248. With respect to her upper extremities, he found:

The patient den[ies] any range of motion in the right shoulder with associated pain both actively and passively - keeping her elbow locked at her side. Mild generalized pain on palpation of the right glenohumeral joint without crepitus, effusion, or atrophy of the supporting musculature. Otherwise, unremarkable upper extremity examination . . . .

Tr. 249. Finally, with respect to gait and station, Dr. Loeser found:

Areas examined with expected normal findings: Normal ability to sit and stand, step up and down, get on and off the examination table, remove and put back on shoes, squat and rise from a squat, ambulate, and walk on toes and heels. [Exceptions to these findings noted below.]
Pertinent findings during this examination: The patient is able to perform the above tasks without ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.