
USCA1 Opinion

	




        December 28, 1995       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                                        ____________________        No. 95-1620                                  RAUL CRUZ-ROSADO,                                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. Jaime Pieras, Jr., U.S. District Judge]                                             ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Selya, Stahl and Lynch,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            Juan A. Hernandez Rivera and Raymond  Rivera Esteves on brief  for            ________________________     _______________________        appellant.            Guillermo Gil,  United  States  Attorney,  Maria  Hortensia  Rios,            _____________                              ______________________        Assistant U.S. Attorney,  and Robert M.  Peckrill, Assistant  Regional                                      ___________________        Counsel, Social Security Administration, on brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                 Per  Curiam.   We affirm  substantially for  the reasons                 ___________            stated  by  the district  court.   In  addition, we  note the            following.   The ALJ was  not bound by  the 1980 RFC,  an RFC            completed prior to an operation the ALJ supportably concluded            was  successful.  On the  scant evidence before  him, the ALJ            could   permissibly  conclude   that   claimant  had   failed            adequately   to  demonstrate   that  claimant's   ability  to            walk/stand was significantly  compromised.  Even if  claimant            developed  a hernia  and  another varicose  vein some  months            later, the ALJ  was not  required to find  that claimant  was            disabled prior to the expiration of insured status in view of            the sparse medical evidence.                 Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.                 ________                                         -2-
