Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Boyd v. SHHS, 94-1966 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 94-1966 Visitors: 5
Filed: Mar. 06, 1995
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: March 6, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ___________________ No. 94-1966 MIGUELINA BOYD, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant, Appellee.___________ Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
USCA1 Opinion









March 6, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



___________________


No. 94-1966




MIGUELINA BOYD,

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

Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________

___________________

Paul Ramos Morales on brief for appellant. __________________
Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Maria Hortensia Rios, _____________ ____________________
Assistant United States Attorney, and Jessie M. Klyce, Assistant _______________
Regional Counsel, Region I, Department of Health and Human
Services, on brief for appellee.



__________________

__________________














Per Curiam. This is an appeal from a district ___________

court judgment affirming a decision of the Secretary of

Health and Human Services denying appellant's applications

for social security disability benefits and disabled widow's

benefits. After a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge

("ALJ") found that appellant retained the functional capacity

to return to her past relevant work as a hairdresser and thus

was not entitled to receive disability insurance benefits on

her own account nor on the account of her deceased spouse.

Upon a careful review of the transcript, record and briefs,

we agree with the district court that there was substantial

evidence to support the ALJ's thorough decision. We find no

basis for appellant's contentions that the ALJ failed to

adequately explore and assess appellant's complaints of

subjective pain and evidence of mental impairment.

Affirmed. ________





















-2-






Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer