Diaz v. Chater ( 1998 )

USCA1 Opinion

      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

                 United States Court of Appeals

                     For the First Circuit











No. 98-1425



                            LISA DIAZ,



                      Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                v.



                 SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER,

                 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,



                       Defendant, Appellee.







           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                 FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND



        [Hon. Robert W. Lovegreen, U.S. Magistrate Judge]







                              Before



                     Torruella, Chief Judge,

               Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.









     Kelly McKenna Cournoyer and Green, Greenberg & Nesselbush on

brief for appellant.

     Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney, Anthony C.

DiGioia, Assistant U.S. Attorney, and Robert M. Peckrill, Assistant

Regional Counsel, on brief for appellee.











December 30, 1998











     Per Curiam.  After carefully reviewing the briefs and record

on appeal, we affirm the judgment below.  Substantial evidence

supported the Appeals Council's determination that the appellant

did not show that she had a disabling impairment.  The appellant's

claim that she suffered a severe, continuing impairment received

little support from the medical evidence for the relevant period.

See Dupuis v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 869 F.2d 622,

623 (1st Cir. 1988)(per curiam).  Although the appellant presented

affidavits from non-medical sources which tended to show that her

activities were restricted during the relevant period, it would be

reasonable to view her failure to seek treatment as undermining the

probative value of the evidence.  See Irlanda Ortiz v. Secretary of

Health and Human Services, 955 F.2d 765, 770 (1st Cir. 1991)(per

curiam)(implicit in  finding of disability is determination that

existing treatments would not restore ability to work).

     Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.