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[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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

______________________
_________________________
appellant.
Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Maria Hortensia Ri
______________
____________________
Assistant United States Attorney, Donna E. Shalala, Secretary
__________________
Health and Human Services, and Nancy B. Salafia, Assistant Regio
________________
Counsel, Department of Health and Human Services, on brief
appellee.
____________________
____________________

Per Curiam.
__________

This is an appeal from the judgment of

the district court affirming the decision of the Secretary of

Health

and Human

Crespo,
benefits.
there is

is

not

Services
entitled

that
to

claimant,
Social

Ramon

Security

Cruzadodisability

Claimant presents one issue for review -- whether

substantial evidence to support

the calculation of

the date his insured status expired.

At claimant's hearing, the administrative law judge
(ALJ) initially
expired

stated that

on June 30, 1980.

supports this position.

claimant's

insured status

had

The record of claimant's earnings

See Transcript at 199.
___

During the

course

of the hearing, however,

the ALJ decided to consider

the medical evidence through March 31, 1981

of sufficient proof of coverage.
ALJ

and asserts that the

despite the lack

Claimant disagrees with the

correct cut-off date

is August 3,

1983.
For this

proposition, claimant

the record of his earnings.

of

hearing

he

received

Rather, he
concerning

does not refer

relies on the notice

the

second

of

four

applications for disability benefits that he had filed.

application was
hearing date
prepared
before"

filed on July

30, 1982.

of August 3, 1983

to prove

that you

The

and states:

were under

followed by a blank space for

Similar

language appears

vocational expert

on the

This

notice sets a
"You should be

a disability
a date.

filled in with the language "Date of hearing."

145.

to

The space is
See Trans. at
___

notice sent

scheduled to testify at the

on or

to the

hearing.

See
___

Trans. at 143.
"on or

Because he was to prove that

before" August

3, 1983, claimant

he was disabled

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

reference

to the

period as set

that such an

insured-status period

by the

arguably erroneous
could enlarge

official record of

earnings.

this

In

any

event, these notices, dated July 22, 1983, concern the second
application filed by claimant.
one the Secretary considered
review.

This

application was not the

and, thus, is not before

As a result, claimant may not rely

us on

on these notices

to support his position.

Next, the notice of the hearing date concerning the
current application, see Trans.
_______
___
should be prepared
before June 30,

to prove

1980, the

claimant's earnings.
evidence

through

at 375, states that claimant

that he became

disabled on

or

date reflected in

the record

of

The fact that the ALJ chose to consider

March

1981

was

to

claimant's

benefit.

Further, the current notice is dated December 4, 1991 -- over

seven years after
_____
case.

the notices upon which

Because there is nothing

claimant's

position,

we

claimant rests his

else in the record

conclude

that

the

decision is supported by substantial evidence.

to back

Secretary's

-3-

The
affirmed.
________

judgment

of the

district court

therefore is

-4-