Balogh v. Commissioner of Social Security

Sixth Circuit

Balogh v. Commissioner of Social Security

94 F. App'x 286

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedApril 6, 2004

DocketNo. 03-1046

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 94 F. App'x 286 (Balogh v. Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Balogh v. Commissioner of Social Security, 94 F. App'x 286 (6th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Debra Balogh wishes to present additional evidence in her application for social security disability benefits, which an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied. The Social Security Appeals Council found no reason to consider additional evidence in Balogh’s case, and the district court granted the Commissioner summary judgment on Balogh’s ensuing civil action.

A district court may remand a case to the ALJ to consider additional evidence only “upon a showing that there is [1] new evidence which is [2] material and that [3] there is good cause for the failure to incorporate such evidence into the record in a prior proceeding.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g); Foster v. Halter, 279 F.3d 348, 357 (6th Cir.2001). This is referred to as a “sentence six remand” and requires that all three elements be met. Delgado v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 30 Fed. Appx. 542, 549 (6th Cir.2002) (per curiam). The party seeking remand has the burden of showing that it is warranted. Sizemore v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 865 F.2d 709, 711 (6th Cir.1988).

We agree with the thorough and well-reasoned report and recommendation of the magistrate judge, adopted by the district court after consideration, that the three additional depositions that Balogh wishes to present fail all three parts of the § 405(g) test. Accordingly, Balogh is not entitled to a remand for further consideration of her claim.

We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Debra Balogh wishes to present additional evidence in her application for social security disability benefits, which an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied. The Social Security Appeals Council found no reason to consider additional evidence in Balogh’s case, and the district court granted the Commissioner summary judgment on Balogh’s ensuing civil action.

A district court may remand a case to the ALJ to consider additional evidence only “upon a showing that there is [1] new evidence which is [2] material and that [3] there is good cause for the failure to incorporate such evidence into the record in a prior proceeding.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g); Foster v. Halter, 279 F.3d 348, 357 (6th Cir.2001). This is referred to as a “sentence six remand” and requires that all three elements be met. Delgado v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 30 Fed. Appx. 542, 549 (6th Cir.2002) (per curiam). The party seeking remand has the burden of showing that it is warranted. Sizemore v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 865 F.2d 709, 711 (6th Cir.1988).

We agree with the thorough and well-reasoned report and recommendation of the magistrate judge, adopted by the district court after consideration, that the three additional depositions that Balogh wishes to present fail all three parts of the § 405(g) test. Accordingly, Balogh is not entitled to a remand for further consideration of her claim.

We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 F. App'x 286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/balogh-v-commissioner-of-social-security-ca6-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack