USCA1 Opinion
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 97-1095
GILBERTO MELENDEZ,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Melba N. Rivera-Camacho and Melba N. Rivera-Camacho & Assocs. on ________________________ __________________________________
brief for appellant.
Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Edna Rosario, Assistant ______________ _____________
United States Attorney, and Donna McCarthy, Assistant Regional _______________
Counsel, Social Security Administration, on brief for appellee.
____________________
September 3, 1997
____________________
Per Curiam. Claimant-appellant Gilberto Melendez __________
appeals from a judgment of the district court affirming a
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security that Melendez
was not entitled to disability benefits. Having carefully
reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm
essentially for the reasons stated by the district court in
its opinion dated November 13, 1996. We are persuaded that
the hypothetical question posed to the Vocational Expert
("VE") was adequate under the particular circumstances of
this case. The VE's testimony indicates that he considered
all eight areas in which appellant was found to have moderate
mental limitations, though he did not recite each of these
areas. Finally, although the VE did mention some evidence
after the insured period, the VE relied on residual
functional capacity assessments for the critical period in
reaching his conclusion that appellant could perform past
jobs.
We add simply that, contrary to appellant's
suggestion, the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") was not
required to recite every piece of evidence that favored
appellant. See Stein v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 317, 319 (7th ___ _____ ________
Cir. 1992) (noting that the level of articulation required is
not precise). The ALJ's decision reveals that he considered
the evidence as a whole, and it indicates the path of his
reasoning. No more was required.
-2-
Affirmed. _________
-3-