Court Opinion

ID: 2963704
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:14:07.198265+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:39.119318
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          October 30, 1995
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                           
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1537 

                               FELIX SANCHEZ-RODRIGUEZ,

                                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

                                Cyr, Boudin and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Juan A. Hernandez Rivera and Raymond  Rivera Esteves on brief  for
            ________________________     _______________________
        appellant.
            Guillermo  Gil,  United  States  Attorney, Maria  Hortensia  Rios-
            ______________                             _______________________
        Gandara,  Assistant  United States  Attorney,  and  Nancy B.  Salafia,
        _______                                             _________________
        Assistant Regional  Counsel, Social Security  Administration, on brief
        for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.    We  affirm  for  substantially  the
                      ___________

            reasons stated by the district court.

                      We   reject  claimant's   argument  that   the  ALJ

            improperly substituted his  own lay opinion  for that of  the

            non-examining physicians.  Unlike the  non-examining doctors,

            the  ALJ heard  claimant's testimony  concerning the  type of

            work  he had been  able to perform  with his brothers.   That

            testimony,  along  with claimant's  failure  to  document his

            claim of  frequent emergency room visits,  supports the ALJ's

            conclusion  that  claimant  was  able  adequately  to perform

            unskilled work.

                      The ALJ did  not err  in relying upon  the grid  to

            conclude  that  sufficient   unskilled  jobs  not   requiring

            frequent  contact with  the  public existed  in the  national

            economy, which  claimant could perform.   Ortiz v. Secretary,
                                                      _____    _________

            890 F.2d 520,  525-28 (1st Cir.  1989); Zalewski v.  Heckler,
                                                    ________     _______

            760 F.2d 160, 165 (7th Cir. 1985).

                      Affirmed.
                      ________

                                         -2-