Neway Mengistu v. Carolyn W. Colvin

Ninth Circuit

Neway Mengistu v. Carolyn W. Colvin

537 F. App'x 724

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 12, 2013

Docket11-56202

StatusUnpublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 537 F. App'x 724 (Neway Mengistu v. Carolyn W. Colvin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Neway Mengistu v. Carolyn W. Colvin, 537 F. App'x 724 (9th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Neway Mengistu appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his applications for Social Security disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s judgment upholding the denial of social security benefits, Berry v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 1228, 1231 (9th Cir.2010), and we reverse and remand.

Mengistu asserts that additional evidence he submitted to the Appeals Council would have changed the outcome of the disability determination. Although we do not have jurisdiction to review the Appeals Council’s denial of further review, we may consider additional evidence presented for the first time to the Appeals Council when reviewing the agency’s disability determination. Taylor v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 659 F.3d 1228, 1231-32 (9th Cir. 2011).

The district court erred in concluding that a remand was not warranted because the new evidence, Dr. Gurevitch’s September 1, 2009, report, relates to the relevant time period and there is a reasonable possibility the report would have changed the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision. See Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 462 (9th Cir.2001) (to warrant a remand, appellant must show “reasonable possibility” that new evidence would have changed outcome of administrative hearing). Therefore, we reverse the district court’s decision affirming the Commissioner’s decision and remand with instructions to remand to the ALJ for consideration of Dr. Gurevitch’s report and for reconsideration of Mengistu’s application for benefits.

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Mengistu’s other arguments.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Neway Mengistu appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his applications for Social Security disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s judgment upholding the denial of social security benefits, Berry v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 1228, 1231 (9th Cir.2010), and we reverse and remand.

Mengistu asserts that additional evidence he submitted to the Appeals Council would have changed the outcome of the disability determination. Although we do not have jurisdiction to review the Appeals Council’s denial of further review, we may consider additional evidence presented for the first time to the Appeals Council when reviewing the agency’s disability determination. Taylor v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 659 F.3d 1228, 1231-32 (9th Cir. 2011).

The district court erred in concluding that a remand was not warranted because the new evidence, Dr. Gurevitch’s September 1, 2009, report, relates to the relevant time period and there is a reasonable possibility the report would have changed the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision. See Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 462 (9th Cir.2001) (to warrant a remand, appellant must show “reasonable possibility” that new evidence would have changed outcome of administrative hearing). Therefore, we reverse the district court’s decision affirming the Commissioner’s decision and remand with instructions to remand to the ALJ for consideration of Dr. Gurevitch’s report and for reconsideration of Mengistu’s application for benefits.

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Mengistu’s other arguments.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

537 F. App'x 724, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neway-mengistu-v-carolyn-w-colvin-ca9-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack