
USCA1 Opinion

	




          October 30, 1995                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                                            ____________________        No. 95-1537                                FELIX SANCHEZ-RODRIGUEZ,                                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                                Cyr, Boudin and Lynch,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            Juan A. Hernandez Rivera and Raymond  Rivera Esteves on brief  for            ________________________     _______________________        appellant.            Guillermo  Gil,  United  States  Attorney, Maria  Hortensia  Rios-            ______________                             _______________________        Gandara,  Assistant  United States  Attorney,  and  Nancy B.  Salafia,        _______                                             _________________        Assistant Regional  Counsel, Social Security  Administration, on brief        for appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per  Curiam.    We  affirm  for  substantially  the                      ___________            reasons stated by the district court.                      We   reject  claimant's   argument  that   the  ALJ            improperly substituted his  own lay opinion  for that of  the            non-examining physicians.  Unlike the  non-examining doctors,            the  ALJ heard  claimant's testimony  concerning the  type of            work  he had been  able to perform  with his brothers.   That            testimony,  along  with claimant's  failure  to  document his            claim of  frequent emergency room visits,  supports the ALJ's            conclusion  that  claimant  was  able  adequately  to perform            unskilled work.                      The ALJ did  not err  in relying upon  the grid  to            conclude  that  sufficient   unskilled  jobs  not   requiring            frequent  contact with  the  public existed  in the  national            economy, which  claimant could perform.   Ortiz v. Secretary,                                                      _____    _________            890 F.2d 520,  525-28 (1st Cir.  1989); Zalewski v.  Heckler,                                                    ________     _______            760 F.2d 160, 165 (7th Cir. 1985).                      Affirmed.                      ________                                         -2-
