Cruz-Rosado v. SHHS ( 1995 )

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        December 28, 1995       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-