USCA1 Opinion
April 1, 1992
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
____________________
No. 91-2222
CARMEN Y. TORRES MONTERO,
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. Carmen Consuelo Cerezo, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Circuit Judge,
_____________
Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________
and Selya, Circuit Judge.
_____________
____________________
Raymond Rivera Esteves and Juan A. Hernandez Rivera on brief for
______________________ _________________________
appellant.
Daniel F. Lopez Romo, 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 have reviewed the parties' briefs and
__________
the record on appeal. We affirm the judgment of the district
court, dated October 21, 1991, essentially for the reasons
stated in the decision of the administrative law judge (ALJ)
dated May 31, 1988. We add the following comments.
The claimant contends that the ALJ disregarded the
February 24, 1988 order of the Appeals Council, remanding
this case for a new decision, by failing to have a vocational
expert (VE) testify at the second hearing. Further, the
claimant contends that the ALJ failed to comply with the
remand order by not fully evaluating the psychiatric
evidence. We reject both contentions.
The Appeals Council vacated the ALJ's first decision
because it had concluded that the claimant did not have a
severe impairment without explaining why it rejected reports
showing severe functional limitations. The Appeals Council
remanded for a new decision "with a clearly articulated
rationale for finding any and all medical reports or opinions
of record persuasive or not persuasive." Record at p. 333.
The ALJ provided that in his second decision. Record at pp.
15-18. And, contrary to the claimant's intimation, the
Appeals Council did not direct the ALJ to solicit further
testimony from a vocational expert. Rather, the necessity of
such further testimony was left to the discretion of the ALJ.
Record at p. 333. We find no abuse of discretion in the
-2-
ALJ's decision not to require more VE testimony. We note
also that claimant's counsel at the second hearing neither
requested additional VE testimony, nor objected to the
absence of same.
Lastly, the claimant's complaints about the ALJ's
alleged failure to comply with the Appeals Council's remand
order are particularly unpersuasive in light of the fact that
the Appeals Council denied the claimant's request for review
of the new decision. Obviously, the Appeals Council, itself,
found the new decision in compliance with its earlier remand
order.
Affirmed.
_________
-3-