[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 00-1448

LUZ M. DELGADO,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant, Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Aida M. Delgado-Colón, U. S. Magistrate Judge]

Before

 Torruella, Chief Judge,

Boudin and Lipez, Circuit Judges.

Nestor Juan Rodriguez on brief for appellant.

Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Lilliam Mendoza Toro,

Assistant United States Attorney, and Robert M. Peckrill,

Assistant Regional Counsel, Social Security Administration, on

brief for appellee.

December 27, 2000
1We note one correction. The ALJ found that claimant's

birth date is August 29, 1946, and claimant has not challenged

this finding on judicial review.

-2-

Per Curiam. Claimant-appellant Luz M. Delgado Lopez

appeals from a judgment of the district court upholding a

decision of the Commissioner denying her social security

disability benefits. Claimant argues that the

Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") failed to give proper

weight to the opinions of treating and examining sources,

failed to consider the record as a whole, and failed to

apply the correct Medical Vocational Guideline (or "Grid"

rule). Based on these arguments, claimant urges us to

reverse the judgment of the district court. In the

alternative, claimant requests that we vacate and remand for

a new determination by the Commissioner in light of

additional evidence.

Upon careful review of the briefs and record, we

reject the claimed errors in the ALJ's decision essentially

for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge.1 The

magistrate judge adequately addresses claimant's challenge

to the weighting of the evidence. Claimant's suggestion

that the ALJ failed to consider the evidence as a whole is
-3-

meritless. Claimant's contention that the ALJ failed to

apply the correct Grid rule is predicated on her argument

that the ALJ should have accepted the functional limitations

found by Dr. Marin. However, given that the ALJ was not

bound by Dr. Marin's findings, the argument fails. 

We also reject claimant's request for a remand for

the taking of additional evidence. The controlling statute

provides in pertinent part that the court "may at any time

order additional evidence to be taken before the

Commissioner of Social Security, but only upon a showing

that there is new evidence which is material and that there

is good cause for the failure to incorporate such evidence

into the record in a prior proceedings." 42 U.S.C. §

405(g). As explained below, we conclude that the proffered

evidence--a Certificate from the Puerto Rico Department of

Education and a Resolution from the Puerto Rico Industrial

Commission--fails to meet this standard.

The Certificate indicates that claimant did not

complete the requirements of a high school education,

contrary to the finding of the ALJ. However, given the

ALJ's finding that claimant is capable of light work and was

a younger individual at the relevant time, the Grid rules

direct a finding of not disabled regardless of claimant's
-4-

educational level. Under the circumstances, the Certificate

is not material. See Evangelista v. Secretary of Health &

Human Servs., 703 F.2d 24, 27 (1st Cir. 1987) (explaining

that evidence is material only if, were the proposed new

evidence to be considered, the Secretary's decision might

reasonably have been different).

Claimant makes no effort to spell out, in any

detail, the significance of the Resolution. The Resolution

contains no first hand medical evidence, but rather

references a magnetic resonance scan ("MRI") apparently

administered to claimant at her personal physician's request

in 1996 (while the case was pending before the agency).

Claimant does not proffer a copy of the MRI, and its

significance is not entirely clear. Assuming for the sake

of argument that the MRI is favorable to claimant, she has

failed to demonstrate good cause for the failure to

incorporate it into prior proceedings. 

Affirmed.