Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00215/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00215-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0405id Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1 FILED

16 SEP-8 PH 12: 12

J4rBc»T§F«AfSi8jA

2

3

4

nm

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 WALDO RENE MEDINA, Case No.: 16cv215-GPC(KSC)

12 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S

LETTER REQUEST FOR A

CONTINUANCE TO PRESENT NEW

EVIDENCE

Plaintiff,

13 v.

14 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting

Commissioner of Social Security, 15

Defendant. 16 [Doc. Nos. 17 and 19]

17

Pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 405(g), ofthe Social Security Act

(“SSA”), plaintiff filed a Complaint to obtain judicial review of a final decision by the

Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying him disability insurance

benefits. [Doc. No. 1.] Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and informa

pauperis. Defendant has filed an Answer to the Complaint [Doc. No. 8] and the

Administrative Record [Doc. No. 10].

Currently before the Court is a letter from plaintiff requesting to continue this case

until he can obtain x-rays “since 2002.” [Doc. No. 17, at p. 1.] Plaintiff wants to present

these x-rays to the Court, because he believes they will show “an inaccurate diagnosis”

that affected the outcome of his claim for disability benefits. [Doc. No. 17, at p. 1.]

Along with his letter, plaintiff submitted some copies of unidentified x-rays and some

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

l

16cv215-GPC(KSC)

Case 3:16-cv-00215-GPC-KSC Document 23 Filed 09/08/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
1 medical treatment records dated February 23, 2016, April 28, 2016, and May 5, 2016

[Doc. No. 19]. These medical treatment records are dated long after the final denial of

plaintiffs disability claim by the Commissioner on December 4, 2015. [Doc. No. 10-2,

at pp. 2-4.] Thus, it appears that plaintiff seeks to supplement the Administrative Record

in this case with additional and new evidence that was not considered by the

Commissioner in denying plaintiffs claim for disability benefits. Defendant has opposed

plaintiffs request to continue the case for this purpose. [Doc. No. 21.]

“In the context ofjudicial review of a decision ofthe Commissioner regarding SSI

disability benefits, evidence outside the administrative record generally is precluded from

consideration by the court.” Baker v. Barnhart, 457 F.3d 882, 891 (8th Cir. 2006). In this

regard, Title 42, United States Code, Section 405(g), states in pertinent part as follows:

“The court shall have power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record,

judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision ofthe Commissioner of Social

Security, with or without remanding the cause for rehearing.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)

(emphasis added).

When new evidence that is not part ofthe administrative record is presented for the

first time to the District Court, Section 405(g) allows the District Court to remand the

case to the Social Security Administration for consideration if, and only if there is “a

showing” that the new evidence is “material” and that there is “good cause for the failure

to incorporate such evidence into the record in a prior proceeding....” 42 U.S.C.

§ 405(g); Brewes v. Commissioner ofSocial Sec. Admin., 682 F.3d 1157, 1164 (9th Cir.

2012). Therefore, this Court will constme plaintiff’s letter seeking a continuance as a

request for a remand to the Social Security Administration under Section 405(g) for

consideration of x-rays “since 2002” and medical records dated after his disability claim

was denied. [Doc. No. 17, atp. 1; Doc. No. 19, atpp. 1-10.]

As the claimant, plaintiff has the burden of showing there is “good cause for his

failure to submit the evidence in the prior proceeding.” Chaney v. Schweiker, 659 F.2d

676, 679 (5th Cir. 1981). “Good cause” exists ifthe claimant can provide a reasonable

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

2

16cv215-GPC(KSC)

Case 3:16-cv-00215-GPC-KSC Document 23 Filed 09/08/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
1 explanation as to why new evidence was unavailable earlier. Mayes v. Massanari, 276

F.3d 453,463 (9th Cir. 2001). For example, “[n]ew medical evidence that becomes

available due to improvements in technology meets the good cause standard, and shall be

considered if it also meets the materiality requirement.” Wainwright v. Sec'y ofHealth &

Human Servs., 939 F.2d 680, 683 (9th Cir. 1991). “A claimant does not meet the good

cause requirement by merely obtaining a more favorable report once his or her claim has

been denied.” Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d at 463. Without more, a simple assertion

“that the evidence only turned up later” is also not enough to satisfy the “good cause”

standard. Clem v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 328, 332 (9th Cir. 1990).

New evidence is “material” ifthere is a reasonable possibility that it would have

changed the outcome of the claim for disability benefits. Booz v. Sec’y ofHealth and

Human Servs., 734 F.2d 1378,1380-1381 (9th Cir. 1984). The new evidence must be

probative ofthe claimant’s condition as it existed during the relevant time period and

prior to the disability hearing. Sanchez v. Sec’y ofHealth and Human Servs., 812 F.2d

509, 511-512 (9th Cir. 1987). New evidence of “later-acquired disabilities or subsequent

deterioration of a previously non-disabling condition” are not “material.” Jones v.

Callahan, 122 F.3d 1148, 1154 (8th Cir. 1997). In Sanchez v. Secretary ofHealth and

Human Services, 812 F.2d 509, for example, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the

claimant’s new evidence was not material because “at most, [it showed] deterioration

after the hearing, which would be material to a new application but not probative of [the

claimant’s] condition at the hearing.” Id. at 512.

Here, plaintiff has not explained why x-rays “since 2002” were not presented for

consideration during the prior proceeding. [Doc. No. 17, at p. 1.] There is nothing to

indicate these x-rays were unavailable earlier and could not have been presented for

consideration while plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits was pending before the

Commissioner. Although plaintiff appears to argue that these x-rays are “material”

because they will show that “[f]rom the beginning this case has been based on an

inaccurate diagnosis by the [d]octor,” he has not offered anything to support his

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

16cv215-GPC(KSC)

Case 3:16-cv-00215-GPC-KSC Document 23 Filed 09/08/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
argument. [Doc. No. 17, at p. 1.] As to the medical treatment records plaintiff submitted

from February 23, 2016, April 28, 2016, and May 5, 2016, long after his disability claim

was denied on December 4, 2015, plaintiff has not explained why there is “good cause”

to submit these documents now. Nor has he explained why he believes these records are

“material” to the outcome of his disability claim. As a result, the Court is unable to

conclude that the new evidence plaintiff wishes to submit is “material” to the outcome of

his disability claim or that there is “good cause” for failing to present this evidence

during the prior proceeding before the Commissioner.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that plaintiffs letter request to continue

this case to submit new evidence must be DENIED without prejudice. When plaintiff

files his summary judgment motion or his opposition to defendant’s cross-motion for

summary judgment, plaintiff may offer additional information and argument in order to

show that the case should be remanded to the Commissioner to consider new and

additional evidence under Section 405(g) based on the standards set forth in this Order.

In other words, to justify a remand to consider new evidence, plaintiff must show that the

new evidence he wishes to present is material to the outcome of his disability claim and

that there good cause (i.e., a really good reason) why this new evidence was not presented

in the prior proceeding before the Commissioner.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 8, 2016

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

yt 21

Hon. Ka/eh S. Crawford

United States Magistrate Judge 22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

16cv215-GPC(KSC)

Case 3:16-cv-00215-GPC-KSC Document 23 Filed 09/08/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4