Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 23, 2005, which describes Ms. Williams’ psychological limitations. She has also submitted a September 9, 2003 report by Dr. Hammerberg finding “a right long thoracic neuropathy,” and an April 17, 2003 MRI by Dr. Solsberg. At-tachs. to plaintiffs motion to correct omissions. Sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) authorizes a district court to remand to the agency when “new and material evidence comes to light, and there is good cause for failing to incorporate such evidence in the earlier proceeding.” Nguyen v. Shalala, 43 F.3d 1400, 1403 (10th Cir.1994). A remand is not appropriate in this case because the new evidence does not demonstrate that the findings relate back to the period on or before the date of the ALJ’s decision. Cf. Chambers v. Barnhart, 389 F.3d 1139, 1142 (10th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>) (quotation omitted). Moreover, Ms. Williams 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that material submitted by appellant that is cumulative of evidence previously of record is not new (B) holding that appeals council must consider evidence submitted with a request for review if it is a new b material and c related to the period on or before the date of the aljs decision (C) holding that additional records submitted to the appeals council are part of the administrative record for judicial review (D) holding that court reviews aljs decision for substantial evidence on the record as a whole including the new evidence submitted after the determination was made (E) holding that evidence submitted for a motion to reopen must be material and state new facts that rebut the underlying finding
Output (English): holding that court reviews aljs decision for substantial evidence on the record as a whole including the new evidence submitted after the determination was made