Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00896/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00896-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Tony Hoffman, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social

Security, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-896-PHX-GMS

ORDER

On November 30, 2009, Plaintiff Tony Hoffman (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion to

Remand the instant action back to the Social Security Administration. (Dkt. # 14.) For the

following reasons, the Court grants the Motion. 

DISCUSSION

Under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401, et seq. (the “Act”), there are only two

kinds of possible remands. Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 99 (1991). “Under sentence

four” of § 405(g) of the Act, “a district court may remand in conjunction with a judgment

affirming, modifying, or reversing the [Commissioner’s] decision.” Id. at 99–100 (citing 42

U.S.C. § 405(g)). “Under sentence six” of that Section, “the district court may remand in

light of additional evidence without making any substantive ruling as to the correctness of

Case 2:09-cv-00896-GMS Document 19 Filed 03/12/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Sentence six also authorizes the district court to remand on motion by the Secretary

made before the Secretary has filed a response in the action. That subcategory of sentence

six remands, however, is not implicated in this case. 

- 2 -

the [Commissioner’s] decision, but only if the claimant shows good cause for failing to

present the evidence earlier.”1 Id. at 100. 

In this case, the Court finds that Plaintiff has presented new and material evidence that

was not considered when this action was before the administrative tribunals. He has also

demonstrated good cause for not presenting this evidence earlier. The instant appeal arises

out of Plaintiff’s 2008 administrative hearing, wherein the Administrative Law Judge

(“ALJ”) precluded Plaintiff from presenting certain medical evidence of his disability.

Relying on the doctrine of res judicata, the ALJ determined that such evidence could not be

considered because a previous administrative tribunal had determined that such evidence was

insufficient to demonstrate that Plaintiff was disabled. The adverse administrative decision,

to which the ALJ gave res judicata effect, however, was recently vacated by another

Division of this Court. (See Dkt. # 14, Ex. A.) Because the previous decision has been

vacated, it appears that the excluded medical evidence should now be considered in the

instant action. Accordingly, Plaintiff has presented material evidence that was not considered

by the ALJ, and Plaintiff has further demonstrated good cause for his failure to present that

evidence earlier. See Melkonyan, 501 U.S. at 100.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand to the Social

Security Administration is GRANTED. (Dkt. # 14.) The Clerk of the Court is directed to

remand back to the Social Security Administration.

DATED this 11th day of March, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-00896-GMS Document 19 Filed 03/12/10 Page 2 of 2