Torres v. SHHS

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

November 10, 1994     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

___________________

No. 94-1360

RAUL TORRES,

                                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. Carmen Consuelo Cerezo, U.S. District Judge]
                                                ___________________

                                 ___________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________
                            Selya and Cyr, Circuit Judges.
                                           ______________

                                 ___________________

               Paul Ramos Morales on brief for appellant.
               __________________
               Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Maria Hortensia Rios,
               _____________                          ____________________
          Assistant  U.S.  Attorney,  and  Robert  M.  Peckrill,  Assistant
                                           ____________________
          Regional  Counsel, Dept. of Health & Human Services, on brief for
          appellee.



__________________

                                  __________________



Per Curiam.  We  have carefully reviewed the  record and
                 __________

            claimant's  brief  and  find  none  of  claimant's  arguments

            meritorious.  Vocational testimony was not required.  The ALJ

            gave  valid reasons, based on  a fair reading  of the record,

            for   discounting   claimant's   subjective  complaints   and

            concluding claimant  retained the capacity to  perform one of

            his former types of jobs as a personal driver/chauffeur.

                 Affirmed.
                 ________

-2-