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                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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.
                                                            ________