Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_06-cv-00221/USCOURTS-azd-4_06-cv-00221-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:206 Social Security Benefits

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Victor Chavarria, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social

Security, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-221-TUC-FRZ

ORDER

I. BACKGROUND

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment pertaining to the

denial of disability benefits by the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") in his case. Also

pending before the Court is Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment regarding the

same denial of disability benefits. 

United States Magistrate Judge Hector C. Estrada issued a Report and Recommendation

on February 25, 2008. In that Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Estrada

recommended granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment in part to the extent the

case is remanded for further proceedings, and denying Defendant's Cross-Motion for

Summary Judgment. The Report and Recommendation indicated that any party could file

written objections to the R & R within 10 days. Plaintiff filed one brief objection on March

7, 2008. Defendant did not file any objections and the time for filing objections has expired.

Case 4:06-cv-00221-FRZ Document 24 Filed 03/31/08 Page 1 of 4
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

As Magistrate Judge Estrada’s Report and Recommendation throughly discussed the

relevant facts and law, the Court will not repeat that entire discussion; rather, the Court will only

discuss the narrow issues specifically raised by Plaintiff’s objection.

- 2 -

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court reviews de novo the objected-to portions of the R & R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Court reviews for clear error the unobjected-to portions of the

R & R. Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); see also Conley

v. Crabtree, 14 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998).

III. DISCUSSION OF PLAINTIFF'S ONE OBJECTION1

A. Plaintiff’s Objection

Plaintiff’s only objection to the Report and Recommendation is that it excludes, upon

remand to the ALJ for further proceedings, the opinion offered by Nurse McVay regarding

Plaintiff’s mental issues. Plaintiff generally argues that the mental assessment offered by

Nurse McVay is highly relevant and that the failure to offer this evidence earlier in the

proceedings (i.e., before the ALJ or the Social Security Appeals Council) was justifiable as

Nurse McVay only began treating his preexisting mental conditions after the administrative

proceedings concluded. The Court does not find Plaintiff’s position persuasive. The Report

and Recommendation properly resolved the issue and stated in relevant part:

The Court has jurisdiction to remand matters to the Commissioner for

consideration of newly discovered evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Defendant

argues that the Court should not remand this matter to the Commissioner for

consideration of Nurse McVay’s May 4, 2006 mental assessment.

The November 18, 2005 “Notice of Decision – Unfavorable” contained

information concerning how to appeal the ALJ’s decision including the

direction that “any new evidence” should be submitted to the Appeals Council

with Plaintiff’s request for review. (TR. 11) The Appeals Council received

additional evidence consisting of a memorandum from Plaintiff’s counsel

dated January 13, 2006. (TR. 9) On March 7, 2006, the Appeals Council

entered its Notice of denial of Plaintiff’s request for review of the ALJ’s

decision. (TR. 6-8) On May 4, 2006, Plaintiff filed the instant court action.

Thereafter, on May 16, 2006, Plaintiff submitted to the Appeals Council Nurse

McVay’s May 4, 2006 mental assessment indicating that the document was

“important as additional evidence for either review by the Federal District

Court or Remand.” (TR. 5-A) It is undisputed that Nurse McVay’s May 4,

2006 mental assessment was not presented while Plaintiff’s case was pending

before either the ALJ or the Appeals Council. (Defendant’s XMSJ, p. 3;

Case 4:06-cv-00221-FRZ Document 24 Filed 03/31/08 Page 2 of 4
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

- 3 -

Plaintiff’s Response, p.3) Thus, Nurse McVay’s mental assessment, which was

submitted after initiation of the instant action, is new evidence.

The Court may remand a case to the Commissioner for consideration

of new evidence when the plaintiff demonstrates that there is: (1) new

evidence that is material; and (2) good cause exists for his failure to

incorporate that evidence into the administrative record. Sanchez v. Secretary,

812 F.2d 509, 511 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Allen v. Secretary, 726 F.2d 1470,

1472 (9th Cir. 1984)); 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)). 

Plaintiff alleged mental problems at the time of the hearing before the

ALJ. Plaintiff provides no explanation why he did not obtain the mental

assessment earlier. 

With regard to the good cause requirement, “[i]f new information

surfaces after the [Commissioner’s] final decision and the claimant could not

have obtained that evidence at the time of the administrative proceeding, the

good cause requirement is satisfied.” Key v. Heckler, 754 F.2d 1545, 1552 (9th

Cir. 1985). However, “[a] claimant does not meet the good cause requirement

simply by obtaining a more favorable report from an expert witness once his

claim is denied...The claimant must establish good cause for not seeking the

expert’s opinion prior to the denial of his claim.” Clem, 894 F.2d at 332

(citing Key, 754 F.2d at 1551). The Ninth Circuit has not found good cause

and, thus, has declined to remand cases for consideration of new evidence

where, like here, the plaintiff offered no reason why he could not have

obtained the evidence earlier. Id. at 332-333 (citing Key, 754, F.2d at 1551;

Allen, 726 F.2d at 1473). Specifically, in Key, the Ninth Circuit opined that

“the obvious explanation is that when Key failed to succeed on his disability

claim...he sought out a new expert witness who might better support his

position. The ‘good cause’ requirement would ‘be meaningless if such

circumstances were sufficient to allow introduction of new evidence.’” Key,

754 F.2d at 1551 (quoting Allen, 726 F.2d at 1473); see also Clem, 894 F.2d

at 332-333 (no good cause to remand in case that was “analogous to the one

analyzed by us in Key...”). Because Plaintiff herein offers no explanation why

the evidence could not have been obtained earlier for use by the

Commissioner, Plaintiff failed to meet the good cause requirement. Id.

Consequently, remand for consideration of Nurse McVay’s report is not

appropriate in this case.

See Report and Recommendation at 23-25. As the Court agrees that Plaintiff has not shown

good cause, Plaintiff’s objection is denied.

B. The Remaining Issues 

As to the remaining issues that were not objected to by the parties, the Court has

reviewed the entire record and concludes that Magistrate Judge Estrada's recommendations

are not clearly erroneous. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; Johnson v. Zema

Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F. Supp. 2d 1203,

1204 (D. Or. 1998). 

Case 4:06-cv-00221-FRZ Document 24 Filed 03/31/08 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

(1) United States Magistrate Judge Estrada’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. #22) is

accepted and adopted.

(2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #14) is granted in part and denied in

part. The Motion is granted to the extent that Plaintiff seeks remand for further proceedings;

the Motion is denied to the extent Plaintiff seeks remand for an immediate payment of

benefits.

(3) Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #17) is denied.

(4) This matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Report and

Recommendation. 

(5) The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the file in this

matter. 

DATED this 31st day of March, 2008.

Case 4:06-cv-00221-FRZ Document 24 Filed 03/31/08 Page 4 of 4