Carrasquillo v. SHHS

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

        June 1, 1994            [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

No. 93-2350 

                                 CARMEN CARRASQUILLO,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

              DONNA E. SHALALA, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                        Selya, Cyr and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
                                               ______________

                                 ____________________

            Paul Ramos Morales on brief for appellant.
            __________________
            Guillermo  Gil,  United  States  Attorney,  Maria  Hortensia Rios,
            ______________                              _____________________
        Assistant  United  States  Attorney,  and Paul  Germanotta,  Assistant
                                                  ________________
        Regional  Counsel, Department of  Health and Human  Services, on brief
        for appellee.

____________________

____________________

Per Curiam.   Claimant Carmen Carrasquillo  appeals
                      __________

            from  the judgment of  the district court  which affirmed the

            decision of the  Secretary of Health and  Human Services that

            she is not entitled to Social Security disability benefits.

                      We  have carefully  reviewed  the  record  and  the

            briefs of the parties and affirm the judgment of the district

            court  for essentially the reasons  stated in its Opinion and

            Order,  dated November 1, 1993.   Because the  Order is well-

            reasoned and  sound, we need not repeat its conclusions here.

            See  In re San Juan  DuPont Plaza Hotel  Fire Litigation, 989
            ___  ___________________________________________________

            F.2d 36, 38 (1st Cir. 1993).

                      Affirmed.
                      ________

-2-