Court Opinion

ID: 2963822
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:15:42.382644+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:10:41.006704
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        December 28, 1995       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                       
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1620

                                  RAUL CRUZ-ROSADO,

                                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. Jaime Pieras, Jr., U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Stahl and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Juan A. Hernandez Rivera and Raymond  Rivera Esteves on brief  for
            ________________________     _______________________
        appellant.
            Guillermo Gil,  United  States  Attorney,  Maria  Hortensia  Rios,
            _____________                              ______________________
        Assistant U.S. Attorney,  and Robert M.  Peckrill, Assistant  Regional
                                      ___________________
        Counsel, Social Security Administration, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.   We affirm  substantially for  the reasons
                 ___________

            stated  by  the district  court.   In  addition, we  note the

            following.   The ALJ was  not bound by  the 1980 RFC,  an RFC

            completed prior to an operation the ALJ supportably concluded

            was  successful.  On the  scant evidence before  him, the ALJ

            could   permissibly  conclude   that   claimant  had   failed

            adequately   to  demonstrate   that  claimant's   ability  to

            walk/stand was significantly  compromised.  Even if  claimant

            developed  a hernia  and  another varicose  vein some  months

            later, the ALJ  was not  required to find  that claimant  was

            disabled prior to the expiration of insured status in view of

            the sparse medical evidence.

                 Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ________

                                         -2-