USCA1 Opinion

                         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                         FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT







                         ____________________





No. 97-2088



                          MARIA M. SANTIAGO,



                         Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                  v.



                   COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,



                         Defendant, Appellee.



                         ____________________



             APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                    FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO



          [Hon. Carmen Consuelo Cerezo, U.S. District Judge]



                         ____________________



                                Before



                         Selya, Circuit Judge,

                      Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,

                      and Boudin, Circuit Judge.



                         ____________________



    Melba N. Rivera-Camacho and Melba N. Rivera Camacho & Assocs. on

brief for appellant.

    Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Lillian Mendoza-Torro,

Assistant U.S. Attorney, and Wayne G. Lewis, Assistant Regional Counsel,

Social Security Administration, on brief for appellee.





                         ____________________

                           March 18, 1998



                         ____________________

      Per Curiam.  Claimant Maria Santiago appeals a district

    court judgment that affirmed a decision by the Commissioner of

    Social Security denying claimant's application for disability

    benefits.  We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the

    parties' briefs on appeal.  We conclude that the Commissioner's

    decision is supported by substantial evidence and uninfected by

    legal error.  We add the following comments.

        1.  Claimant asserts, without citation to the record or

    case law, that she proved that she is unable to perform her

    past relevant work as a housekeeper.  We disagree.  The record

    discloses that this work required claimant to perform only

    simple, routine tasks for up to 4-5 hours, and that both of the

    Commissioner's consulting psychologists found claimant's

    ability to perform such tasks was not significantly limited. 

    Although claimant was represented by counsel at her

    administrative hearing, she never explained how her impairments

    prevented her from performing her past work.  Thus, she failed

    to meet her burden at step four.  See, e.g., Santiago v.

    Secretary of Health and Human Services, 944 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir.

    1991)(per curiam); Gray v. Heckler, 790 F.2d 369, 372, 375 (1st

    Cir. 1985)(per curiam);  Gonzalez Perez v. Secretary of Health

    and Human Services, 572 F2d 886, 888 (1st Cir. 1978).        

        2.  Claimant next says that the administrative law judge

    (ALJ) should have evaluated her mental impairment under the

    listing for Somatoform Disorders (12.07), not under the

    listing for Affective Disorders (12.04).  She maintains that

    the ALJ applied the wrong listing and, in so doing, 

    impermissibly substituted his own lay opinion on the nature of

    claimant's mental impairment for the opinion of his medical

    advisor, Dr. Perez Arzola.  Claimant errs on both counts.   Dr.

    Perez Arzola's testimony in no way established the presence of

    a somatoform disorder, and there was ample evidence to support

    the ALJ's use of the listing governing affective disorders. 

        3.  Vocational expert testimony was not required where

    claimant failed to meet her burden at step four and the

    Commissioner procured expert assessments of claimant's residual

    functional capacity.  

        Claimant's remaining contentions on appeal are meritless. 

      Affirmed.