Segarra v. SHHS

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

April 5, 1996         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                                 ____________________


No. 95-1783



                                    MARIA SEGARRA,



                                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



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                          Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________



                                 ____________________



            Salvador Medina De La Cruz on brief for appellant.
            __________________________

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

        Assistant United  States Attorney,  and Gerald Luke,  Attorney, Social
                                                ___________

        Security Administration, on brief for appellee.


____________________


____________________



PER CURIAM.   We have carefully  reviewed the record  on
                 ___________



            appeal as a  whole and  agree that it  contains   substantial



            evidence supporting the Secretary's finding that claimant was



            not  disabled  prior  to July  19,  1991.    The judgment  is



            affirmed essentially  for the reasons stated  in the district



            court's opinion and order dated April 24, 1995.



                 Affirmed.
                 ________


-2-