Leigh v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedOctober 2, 2019
Docket2:19-cv-01716
StatusUnknown

This text of Leigh v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration (Leigh v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Leigh v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, (D. Ariz. 2019).

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Ann Leigh, No. CV-19-01716-PHX-ESW

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion to Amend the Opening Brief to 18 Include Argument Based on New and Material Evidence” (Doc. 13). In deciding Plaintiff’s 19 application for disability benefits, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) reviewed an 20 opinion from Plaintiff’s treating physician, Dr. Molly Finley, concerning Plaintiff’s 21 limitations. In her Motion, Plaintiff explains that she has obtained a letter dated September 22 10, 2019 from Dr. Finley that clarifies the bases of Dr. Finley’s opinion.1 (Id. at 1). 23 Plaintiff seeks to amend her Opening Brief to include the additional argument that the 24 Court should remand the matter to the ALJ pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) 25 to allow the ALJ to consider Dr. Finley’s letter. (Doc. 13-1 at 14). 26 “Once a claimant brings an action under § 405(g), the district court may remand to 27 the Commissioner of Social Security Administration only under sentence four or sentence 28 1 The letter actually reflects a date of September 10, 2018. (Doc. 13-2 at 1). 1 six of § 405(g).” Hoa Hong Van v. Barnhart, 483 F.3d 600, 605 (9th Cir. 2007) (footnotes 2 omitted). “A remand under sentence four is essentially a determination that the agency 3 erred in some respect in reaching a decision to deny benefits[,] whereas 4 a remand under sentence six can be ordered only in two particular instances: where the 5 Commissioner requests a remand before answering the complaint, or where new, material 6 evidence is adduced that was for good cause not presented before the agency.” Id. (internal 7 quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 310 8 (1993) (“with a sentence-four remand; a court’s order to remand a case pursuant to sentence 9 four of § 405(g) necessarily means that the Secretary has committed legal error”). 10 To succeed on a request for remand pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), 11 a claimant must show that the additional evidence “is material and that there is good cause 12 for the failure to incorporate such evidence into the record in [the] prior proceeding.” 42 13 U.S.C. § 405(g). To demonstrate good cause, a claimant must show that the evidence was 14 unavailable earlier. Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 463 (9th Cir. 2001); Key v. 15 Heckler, 754 F.2d 1542, 1551 (9th Cir. 2001). “A claimant does not meet the good cause 16 requirement by merely obtaining a more favorable report once his or her claim has been 17 denied.” Mayes, 276 F.3d at 463; see also Morales v. Colvin, No. CIV.A. 13-229J, 2015 18 WL 1507844, at *4 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2015) (“The fact that plaintiff now has new counsel 19 who believes that the additional evidence may support her claim for disability is not 20 grounds for remanding the case under sentence 6.”). New evidence is “material” within 21 the meaning of section 405(g) if it “bear[s] directly and substantially on the matter in 22 dispute,” and if there is a “reasonabl[e] possibility that the new evidence would have 23 changed the outcome” of the ALJ’s determination. Bruton v. Massanari, 268 F.3d 824, 24 827 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Booz v. Secretary, 734 F.2d 1378, 1380-81 (9th Cir. 1984)). 25 Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown good cause for failing to obtain 26 and present Dr. Finley’s clarifying letter during the administrative proceedings. 27 Accordingly, 28 IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s “Motion to Amend the Opening Brief to || Include Argument Based on New and Material Evidence” (Doc. 13). 2 Dated this 2nd day of October, 2019. 3 4 C , □ S Honorable Eileen S. Willett 6 United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Leigh v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leigh-v-commissioner-of-social-security-administration-azd-2019.