Torres-Maldonado v. SHHS ( 1995 )

USCA1 Opinion

        December 28, 1995       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT







                                 ____________________





        No. 95-1598



                               ANGEL TORRES-MALDONADO,



                                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. Salvador E. Casellas, U.S. District Judge]
___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Cyr, Boudin and Lynch,

                                   Circuit Judges.
______________



                                 ____________________



            Raymond Rivera Esteves and Juan A.  Hernandez Rivera on brief  for
______________________     _________________________

        appellant.

            Guillermo  Gil,  United States  Attorney,  Maria  Hortensia  Rios,
______________                             ______________________

        Assistant  United  States  Attorney,  Robert  M.  Pekrill,   Assistant
___________________

        Regional Counsel,  and  Wayne  G.  Lewis,  Attorney,  Social  Security
________________

        Administration, on brief for appellee.





                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________







































                 Per Curiam.  Plaintiff-appellant  Angel Torres-Maldonado
__________



            appeals from  the  district court's  decision  affirming  the



            denial of disability benefits by  the Secretary of Health and



            Human  Services.   We  have carefully  reviewed the  parties'



            briefs and the record on appeal.  Appellant's claims that the



            ALJ  failed to consider his allegations  of disabling pain or



            failed to  consider the cumulative effect  of his impairments



            are belied by the  record.  We have  also concluded that,  in



            presenting a hypothetical to  the vocational expert (VE), the



            ALJ's misspoken reference to  an onset date of 1991,  did not



            mislead  the  VE  as  the  description  of  impairments  that



            followed  referred to  medical evidence  within  the relevant



            time period.



                 We affirm  on the  basis of  the district  court's well-
______



            reasoned Opinion and Order dated May 10, 1995.















































                                         -2-