
USCA1 Opinion

	




          June 1, 1993                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 92-2308                                 RAFAEL RAMOS-SERRANO,                                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. Raymond L. Acosta, U.S. District Judge]                                             ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,                                         ___________                          Torruella and Cyr, Circuit Judges.                                             ______________                                 ____________________            Raymond Rivera Esteves and Juan A.  Hernandez Rivera on brief  for            ______________________     _________________________        appellant.            Daniel  F.  Lopez-Romo,   United  States  Attorney,  Jose  Vazquez            ______________________                               _____________        Garcia,  Assistant  United  States  Attorney,  and  Jessie  M.  Klyce,        ______                                              _________________        Assistant Regional  Counsel, Region I, Department of  Health and Human        Services, on brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.   We have  reviewed the parties'  briefs and                 __________            the record on appeal.  We affirm the judgment of the district            court,  dated October  1, 1992,  essentially for  the reasons            stated  in the magistrate  judge's report and recommendation,            dated July 28, 1992.                 We need  add only the  following comments.   Contrary to            the claimant's contention, the administrative law judge (ALJ)            did not  fail to  address  the residual  functional  capacity            (RFC)  report of Dr. Castrodad,  dated October 30,  1985.  At            the hearing on  May 8, 1990, the ALJ pointed  out that it was            contradicted by the  testimony of the  medical advisor  (MA).            Furthermore, for the most part, that RFC appears based on the            subjective complaints of the claimant, as Dr. Castrodad's own            examination  found  only   "tenderness  along   paravertebral            muscles" and,  as to  inability to  do work,  Dr. Castrodad's            only  comment was that the claimant not do any work requiring            the handling of food.   The RFC report of Dr.  Cestero, dated            May 22, 1987, (well beyond  the expiration of the  claimant's            insured  status, we add) was also properly rejected by ALJ as            based  solely on claimant's own  report of his  history.  Dr.            Cestero, herself,  reported that her examination of claimant,            as well as the x-rays, were negative.                 We also conclude that, even if as claimant contends,  he            had recurring  dizzy spells, the  ALJ could properly  rely on            theMA's determinationthat theywere notof adisabling severity.                 Affirmed.                 ________
