Skodras v. Callahan

Case Date: 04/01/1999
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 98-1677

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit





No. 98-1677

PATRICIA SKODRAS,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

JOHN J. CALLAHAN,

Defendant, Appellee.



APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

[Hon. Timothy M. Boudewyns, U.S. Magistrate Judge]



Before

Stahl, Circuit Judge,
Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Lipez, Circuit Judge.




Donna M. Nesselbush and Green, Greenberg & Nesselbush on brief
for appellant.
Margaret E. Curran, United States Attorney, Michael P.
Iannotti, Assistant U.S. Attorney, and Wayne G. Lewis, Assistant
Regional Counsel, on brief for appellee.





March 25, 1999







Per Curiam. Claimant Patricia Skodras appeals from
a district court judgment affirming the decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security that she was not entitled to
disability benefits. We have carefully reviewed the record and
claimant's contentions on appeal and conclude that the judgment
must be affirmed essentially for the reasons stated in the
February 26, 1998 Memorandum and Order of the magistrate judge.
We add only the following comments.
Claimant's arguments that the administrative law
judge (ALJ) ignored the opinions of her treating physicians and
instead relied on his own lay opinion in determining that she
was not disabled proceed on the assumption that to constitute
"substantial gainful activity" for the purpose of deciding
whether a claimant was disabled during a particular period,
work performed during that period must have been executed on a
full-time basis. However, the Social Security regulations
specifically state that "[y]our work may be substantial even if
it is done on a part-time basis or if you do less, get paid
less, or have less responsibility than when you worked before."
20 C.F.R.