USCA1 Opinion

          October 30, 1995

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                           

                                 ____________________





        No. 95-1537 



                               FELIX SANCHEZ-RODRIGUEZ,



                                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. Jaime Pieras, Jr., U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Cyr, Boudin and Lynch,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________



                                 ____________________



            Juan A. Hernandez Rivera and Raymond  Rivera Esteves on brief  for
            ________________________     _______________________

        appellant.

            Guillermo  Gil,  United  States  Attorney, Maria  Hortensia  Rios-
            ______________                             _______________________

        Gandara,  Assistant  United States  Attorney,  and  Nancy B.  Salafia,
        _______                                             _________________

        Assistant Regional  Counsel, Social Security  Administration, on brief

        for appellee.





                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________









































































































































































                      Per  Curiam.    We  affirm  for  substantially  the
                      ___________



            reasons stated by the district court.



                      We   reject  claimant's   argument  that   the  ALJ



            improperly substituted his  own lay opinion  for that of  the



            non-examining physicians.  Unlike the  non-examining doctors,



            the  ALJ heard  claimant's testimony  concerning the  type of



            work  he had been  able to perform  with his brothers.   That



            testimony,  along  with claimant's  failure  to  document his



            claim of  frequent emergency room visits,  supports the ALJ's



            conclusion  that  claimant  was  able  adequately  to perform



            unskilled work.



                      The ALJ did  not err  in relying upon  the grid  to



            conclude  that  sufficient   unskilled  jobs  not   requiring



            frequent  contact with  the  public existed  in the  national



            economy, which  claimant could perform.   Ortiz v. Secretary,
                                                      _____    _________



            890 F.2d 520,  525-28 (1st Cir.  1989); Zalewski v.  Heckler,
                                                    ________     _______



            760 F.2d 160, 165 (7th Cir. 1985).



                      Affirmed.
                      ________



































                                         -2-