Martinez-Rojas v. Commissioner of SS

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

May 13, 1996

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                                 ____________________


No. 96-1034


JAIME MARTINEZ-ROJAS,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                           COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,



                                 Defendant, Appellee.


____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO



                  [Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________



                                 ____________________



            Melba  N. Rivera-Camacho  and Rivera,  Requena &  Assocs. on brief
            ________________________      ___________________________

        for appellant.

            Guillermo Gil,  United States Attorney,  Rosa E.  Rodriguez-Velez,
            _____________                            ________________________

        Chief, Civil Division, and Wayne G. Lewis, Assistant Regional Counsel,
                                   ______________

        Social Security Administration, on brief for appellee.


____________________


____________________



                      Per  Curiam.      We  have  carefully reviewed  the
                      ___________



record and conclude  that substantial  evidence supports  the



            Secretary's  determination that claimant  was not entitled to



            social security disability benefits.   We have considered all



            of  claimant's  arguments and,  finding  them without  merit,



            affirm the judgment essentially for the reasons stated by the



            district court.  We add only these comments. 



                      Claimant now argues, as  he did before the district



            court, that the record does  not support the conclusion  that



            his skin condition does not limit his ability  to do his past



            relevant work because he can use gloves.  On the contrary, it



            was  within  the province  of  the  Secretary  to reach  that



            common-sense  conclusion, considering  not  only the  medical



            findings  stated  in  the dermatologist's  letter,  but  also



            claimant's own testimony about the intermittent nature of the



            condition,  its  alleviation   through  treatment,  his  past



            practice of sometimes wearing gloves while  doing maintenance



            work,  his  past  ability  to function  many  years  with the



            condition (he  said  he had  it  since he  was  12), and  his



            failure  to list the skin  condition in his  application as a



            reason  why  he cannot  work.   See  Gordils v.  Secretary of
                                            ___  _______     ____________



            Health  & Human Services, 921 F.2d 327, 329 (1st Cir. 1990). 
            ________________________


Affirmed.
                      ________


-3-