USCA1 Opinion

          January 23, 1995
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________


        No. 94-1887

                              LOURDES CHAULIZANT NIEVES,

                                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,
                                           ___________
                          Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Fabio  A. Roman  Garcia  and  Cordero, Gonzalez,  Roman,  Souto  &
            _______________________       ____________________________________
        Rodriguez on brief for appellant.
        _________
            Guillermo Gil,  United  States  Attorney,  Maria  Hortensia  Rios,
            _____________                              ______________________
        Assistant  United  States Attorney,  and  Robert  J. Triba,  Assistant
                                                  ________________
        Regional Counsel, Department  of Health and  Human Services, on  brief
        for appellee.


                                 ____________________


                                 ____________________





















                 Per Curiam.  Appellant Lourdes Chaulizant Nieves appeals
                 __________

            the order  of  the  United  States  District  Court  for  the

            District of  Puerto Rico affirming the  Secretary's denial of

            appellant's application  for disability  benefits.   We  have

            reviewed  carefully the record in this case and the briefs of

            the parties.    Essentially  for  the reasons  given  by  the

            administrative law judge [ALJ] in his decision dated November

            20,  1991,  and by  the magistrate  judge  in his  report and

            recommendation dated  May 17,  1994, we find  the Secretary's

            decision to be  supported by  substantial evidence.   We  add

            only the following.

                 The  only issue  raised by  appellant to  the magistrate

            judge's report,  and hence the only  issue properly preserved

            for appeal, Keating v. Secretary  of Health & Human Services,
                        _______    _____________________________________

            848 F.2d 271, 274-75  (1st Cir. 1988), is that  the Secretary

            failed  to develop  fully  the facts  related to  appellant's

            claim of mental retardation and  therefore that a remand  was

            appropriate.   See 42  U.S.C.   405(g).   This court  has not
                           ___

            hesitated to insist that  the Secretary bear a responsibility

            for adequate development of  the record in appropriate cases.

            See,  e.g.,  Evangelista  v.  Secretary  of  Health  &  Human
            ___   ___    ___________      _______________________________

            Services, 826 F.2d 136, 142 (1st Cir. 1987).
            ________

                 Among the  factors which  this court has  found increase

            the  Secretary's responsibility  to  develop the  record  are

            appellant's  being  unrepresented  at  the  hearing  and  the





















            presentation of a claim which "itself seems on its face to be

            substantial."  See Currier  v. Secretary of Health, Education
                           ___ _______     ______________________________

            & Welfare, 612 F.2d 594, 598  (1st Cir. 1980).  In this case,
            _________

            appellant was  represented by  counsel at the  hearing before

            the ALJ.   Moreover, appellant presented  no medical evidence

            of a mental impairment nor did she  or her counsel ever claim

            that a mental impairment had prevented her from being able to

            work.  Finally, neither  appellant nor counsel ever requested

            the ALJ to schedule a consultative examination on appellant's

            mental condition.  In  these circumstances, the Secretary was

            under no obligation sua sponte to develop the record.
                                ___ ______

                 Affirmed.
                 ________





























                                         -3-