
USCA1 Opinion

	




          April 25, 1994                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                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.                                                            ________
