USCA1 Opinion
November 22, 1994
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 94-1387
RAMON CRUZADO-CRESPO,
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. Raymond L. Acosta, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Selya and Cyr, Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Raymond Rivera Esteves and Juan A. Hernandez Rivera on brief for ______________________ _________________________
appellant.
Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Maria Hortensia Rios, ______________ ______________________
Assistant United States Attorney, Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of __________________
Health and Human Services, and Nancy B. Salafia, Assistant Regional ________________
Counsel, Department of Health and Human Services, on brief for
appellee.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. This is an appeal from the judgment of __________
the district court affirming the decision of the Secretary of
Health and Human Services that claimant, Ramon Cruzado-
Crespo, is not entitled to Social Security disability
benefits. Claimant presents one issue for review -- whether
there is substantial evidence to support the calculation of
the date his insured status expired.
At claimant's hearing, the administrative law judge
(ALJ) initially stated that claimant's insured status had
expired on June 30, 1980. The record of claimant's earnings
supports this position. See Transcript at 199. During the ___
course of the hearing, however, the ALJ decided to consider
the medical evidence through March 31, 1981 despite the lack
of sufficient proof of coverage. Claimant disagrees with the
ALJ and asserts that the correct cut-off date is August 3,
1983.
For this proposition, claimant does not refer to
the record of his earnings. Rather, he relies on the notice
of hearing he received concerning the second of four
applications for disability benefits that he had filed. This
application was filed on July 30, 1982. The notice sets a
hearing date of August 3, 1983 and states: "You should be
prepared to prove that you were under a disability on or
before" followed by a blank space for a date. The space is
filled in with the language "Date of hearing." See Trans. at ___
145. Similar language appears on the notice sent to the
vocational expert scheduled to testify at the hearing. See ___
Trans. at 143. Because he was to prove that he was disabled
"on or before" August 3, 1983, claimant asserts that this
must be the date he was last insured.
Although claimant's reading of both notices is
plainly plausible, the record as a whole does not support his
position. First, we doubt that such an arguably erroneous
reference to the insured-status period could enlarge this
period as set by the official record of earnings. In any
event, these notices, dated July 22, 1983, concern the second
application filed by claimant. This application was not the
one the Secretary considered and, thus, is not before us on
review. As a result, claimant may not rely on these notices
to support his position.
Next, the notice of the hearing date concerning the
current application, see Trans. at 375, states that claimant _______ ___
should be prepared to prove that he became disabled on or
before June 30, 1980, the date reflected in the record of
claimant's earnings. The fact that the ALJ chose to consider
evidence through March 1981 was to claimant's benefit.
Further, the current notice is dated December 4, 1991 -- over
seven years after the notices upon which claimant rests his _____
case. Because there is nothing else in the record to back
claimant's position, we conclude that the Secretary's
decision is supported by substantial evidence.
-3-
The judgment of the district court therefore is
affirmed. ________
-4-