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[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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

______________________
_________________________
appellant.
Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Maria Hortensia R
______________
___________________
Gandara, Assistant United States Attorney, and Nancy B. Salaf

_______
Assistant Regional Counsel, Department of Health
on brief for appellee.

_______________
and Human Servic

____________________
August 31, 1994
____________________

Per Curiam.
__________

Claimant, Ruben Rivera-Negron,

challenges the denial of disability benefits.

Mr.
carpentry jobs

Rivera-Negron

worked

for many years in Puerto

He alleged an onset of disability

after effects of
left

foot.

wear heavy

various

and

Rico and New York City.

an undisplaced fracture of

required on

laborer

in November, 1990, due to

He maintained that because

shoes

in

the big toe on

the

his

of pain he was unable to

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

work-related

limited his ability

activities."

The ALJ,

to perform basic

therefore, terminated

the

review process at Step 2, or the severity stage, of the five-step

sequential inquiry.
The

decision of

Secretary when
appealed to

See
___

the

The

became

the Appeals

his

the

final

decision

Council denied review.

which affirmed the

claimant

challenges

the ALJ's

of

the

The claimant

decision of

finding

essence, the claimant argues

application

of

the

severity which was enunciated in

threshold

test

of

no

that the ALJ

of medical

McDonald v. Secretary of Health

_______________________________

and Human Services, 795 F.2d 1118 (1st Cir. 1986).

___________________
this

137 (1987).

We also affirm.

severe impairment. In
in

ALJ

the district court,

the Secretary.

erred

Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S.

________________

court held that the Step 2

In McDonald,
_________

severity test is justified as a

-2-

de

minimis

screening

policy

precluded from implementing a

and

that the

Secretary

is

not

threshold test of medical severity

to screen out

claims that

vocational factors

would clearly be

disallowed even

were considered. Id. at 1121-1126.

__

if

See also
___ ____

Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (1987).

________________
The
suffered

State Insurance

"[l]oss

functioning]

of

due to a

concluded

the

GPF

claimant

[general

had

physical

large toe in

the left foot-

However, an examination

several months

in July 1991 found no remaining abnormality in the toe, no

redness or swelling,
claimant's
tolerate
treatment

and full range of motion.

complaints
heavy

of

cramps,

shoes or

work

was merited.

pain

Notwithstanding

and

boots, the

The ALJ

regarding his inability to

the

of

loss of the

secondary articulation."
later

50%

Fund

an

inability

to

doctor

concluded no

found claimant

unpersuasive

wear heavy shoes, and gave

weight to

medical evidence indicating no loss of motion or other signs

of abnormality
reports

and

in the toe.
claimant's

In

view of the

sparse

treatment

July 1991
history,

medical

the

ALJ's

findings are justified and adequately supported by the record.

For
evidence

to

claimant

does

the

support
not

impairments which
basic

work-related

foregoing
the
have

reasons,

Secretary's
any

limits his

activities.

We

find

substantial

determination

impairment

significantly

appropriately terminated at the

we

or

combination

ability to

conclude

the

of

perform

that review

Step 2 severity level.

-3-

that

was

We have

considered

all of claimant's arguments and have found them to be

without merit.
Affirmed.
________

See 1st Cir. R. 27.1.

___

-4-