Santiago-Santiago v. SHHS
Case Date: 04/25/1994
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 93-1428
|
April 25, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 93-1428 MARIA DE J. SANTIAGO-SANTIAGO, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF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. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Cyr, Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________ ____________________ Raymond Rivera Esteves and Juan A. Hernandez Rivera on brief for ______________________ _________________________ appellant. Charles E. Fitzwilliam, United States Attorney, Jose Vazquez ________________________ _____________ Garcia, Assistant United States Attorney, and Robert M. Peckrill, ______ ___________________ Assistant Regional Counsel, Department of Health and Human Services, on brief for appellee. ____________________ ____________________ Per Curiam. We affirm substantially for the ___________ reasons stated in the district court's opinion and order of February 1, 1993. We have carefully reviewed the entire record and disagree with claimant's contentions that the testimony of the medical expert was flawed. The opinion of a testifying medical expert who has explained the relevant medical evidence is entitled to considerable weight. Dudley ______ v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 816 F.2d 792, 794 _____________________________________ (1st Cir. 1987); see also Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. ___ ____ __________ _______ 389, 408 (1971). In addition, the vocational expert's testimony that claimant could perform a narrow range of light work was properly credited. See ___ Berios Lopez v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 951 ____________ _______________________________________ F.2d 427, 429 (1st Cir. 1991). The record as a whole sufficiently supports the Secretary's decision. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. ________ |