Court Opinion

ID: 2962902
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:03:27.999071+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:21:02.204631
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          November 10, 1994     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ___________________          No. 94-1360                                                 RAUL TORRES,                                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.
                                           ______________                                 ___________________               Paul Ramos Morales on brief for appellant.
               __________________               Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Maria Hortensia Rios,
               _____________                          ____________________          Assistant  U.S.  Attorney,  and  Robert  M.  Peckrill,  Assistant
                                           ____________________          Regional  Counsel, Dept. of Health & Human Services, on brief for          appellee.

                                  __________________                                  __________________

                 Per Curiam.  We  have carefully reviewed the  record and
                 __________            claimant's  brief  and  find  none  of  claimant's  arguments            meritorious.  Vocational testimony was not required.  The ALJ            gave  valid reasons, based on  a fair reading  of the record,            for   discounting   claimant's   subjective  complaints   and            concluding claimant  retained the capacity to  perform one of            his former types of jobs as a personal driver/chauffeur.                 Affirmed.
                 ________                                         -2-