
USCA1 Opinion

	




          February 11, 1994                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 93-1772                                 TOMAS MARTINEZ-BURGOS,                                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. Gilberto Gierbolini, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                             Torruella, Boudin and Stahl,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            Juan A. Hernandez Rivera  and Raymond Rivera Esteves on brief  for            ________________________      ______________________        appellant.            Guillermo  Gil,  United  States Attorney,  Maria  Hortensia  Rios,            ______________                             ______________________        Assistant  United States  Attorney,  and  Paul  Germanotta,  Assistant                                                  ________________        Regional Counsel, Department  of Health and  Human Services, on  brief        for appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per  Curiam.    We  affirm  substantially  for  the                      ___________            reasons stated in the opinions of the magistrate and district            court.   We  disagree  with   claimant's  argument  that  the            testimony of a VE was necessary to determine whether a person            with   the  "moderate"   limitations  the  ALJ   found  could            adequately perform the  job of bank office clerk and cashier.            The descriptions of  claimant's past work, together  with the            medical reports  and MA's  testimony addressed  to claimant's            level  of  intellectual and  social functioning,  provided an            adequate basis  from which  to conclude  that claimant  could            perform those jobs at an acceptable level.                      Affirmed.                      ________
