
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          May 13, 1996                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                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-
