Court Opinion

ID: 2964142
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:21:09.889685+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:52:33.213028
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          May 13, 1996
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1034

                                JAIME MARTINEZ-ROJAS,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                           COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                  [Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Melba  N. Rivera-Camacho  and Rivera,  Requena &  Assocs. on brief
            ________________________      ___________________________
        for appellant.
            Guillermo Gil,  United States Attorney,  Rosa E.  Rodriguez-Velez,
            _____________                            ________________________
        Chief, Civil Division, and Wayne G. Lewis, Assistant Regional Counsel,
                                   ______________
        Social Security Administration, 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 entitled to

            social security disability benefits.   We have considered all

            of  claimant's  arguments and,  finding  them without  merit,

            affirm the judgment essentially for the reasons stated by the

            district court.  We add only these comments. 

                      Claimant now argues, as  he did before the district

            court, that the record does  not support the conclusion  that

            his skin condition does not limit his ability  to do his past

            relevant work because he can use gloves.  On the contrary, it

            was  within  the province  of  the  Secretary  to reach  that

            common-sense  conclusion, considering  not  only the  medical

            findings  stated  in  the dermatologist's  letter,  but  also

            claimant's own testimony about the intermittent nature of the

            condition,  its  alleviation   through  treatment,  his  past

            practice of sometimes wearing gloves while  doing maintenance

            work,  his  past  ability  to function  many  years  with the

            condition (he  said  he had  it  since he  was  12), and  his

            failure  to list the skin  condition in his  application as a

            reason  why  he cannot  work.   See  Gordils v.  Secretary of
                                            ___  _______     ____________

            Health  & Human Services, 921 F.2d 327, 329 (1st Cir. 1990). 
            ________________________

                      Affirmed.
                      ________

                                         -3-