Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Cruz-Rosado v. SHHS, 73 F.3d 355, 1st Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views1 page
    The document is a court case opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit regarding an appeal of a denial of social security disability benefits. The court affirmed the district court's ruling, agreeing with the administrative law judge's (ALJ) determination that the claimant failed to adequately demonstrate his ability to walk and stand was significantly compromised to establish disability prior to his insured status expiring. The court noted the ALJ was not bound by an earlier RFC from before a surgery that appeared to be successful, and the scant medical evidence was insufficient to overturn the ALJ's ruling even if new medical issues later developed.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1995-12-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 73 F.3d 355 Docket: 95-1620

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The document is a court case opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit regarding an appeal of a denial of social security disability benefits. The court affirmed the district court's ruling, agreeing with the administrative law judge's (ALJ) determination that the claimant failed to adequately demonstrate his ability to walk and stand was significantly compromised to establish disability prior to his insured status expiring. The court noted the ALJ was not bound by an earlier RFC from before a surgery that appeared to be successful, and the scant medical evidence was insufficient to overturn the ALJ's ruling even if new medical issues later developed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    7 views1 page

    Cruz-Rosado v. SHHS, 73 F.3d 355, 1st Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The document is a court case opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit regarding an appeal of a denial of social security disability benefits. The court affirmed the district court's ruling, agreeing with the administrative law judge's (ALJ) determination that the claimant failed to adequately demonstrate his ability to walk and stand was significantly compromised to establish disability prior to his insured status expiring. The court noted the ALJ was not bound by an earlier RFC from before a surgery that appeared to be successful, and the scant medical evidence was insufficient to overturn the ALJ's ruling even if new medical issues later developed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    73 F.

    3d 355
    NOTICE: First Circuit Local Rule 36.2(b)6 states unpublished opinions may be
    cited only in related cases.

    Raul CRUZ-ROSADO, Plaintiff, Appellant,


    v.
    SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
    Defendant, Appellee.
    No. 95-1620.

    United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.


    Dec. 28, 1995.

    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.
    Before SELYA, STAHL and LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
    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.

    You might also like