Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00082/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00082-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

---

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

06cv82-WQH (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHELLE D. SNOVELLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 06cv82-WQH (BLM)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

FOR ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR REMAND WITH

CONTINGENCIES (REQUEST FOR

STAY OF FINAL FEDERAL DECISION

PENDING REVIEW)

[ECF No. 63]

Plaintiff Michelle D. Snovelle brought this action for judicial review of the Social Security

Commissioner's (Commissioner) denial of her application for disability insurance benefits and

supplemental security income. On August 4, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Remand with

Contingencies. ECF No. 63. Before the Court are Plaintiff's motion, Defendant's Opposition to the

motion filed on September 8, 2011, and Plaintiff's reply filed on October 6, 2011. ECF Nos. 63,

69 & 74.

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to United States District Judge William Q.

Hayes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Civil Local Rule 72.1(c) of the United States District

Court for the Southern District of California. For the reasons set forth below, this Court

RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's Motion for Remand with Contingencies be DENIED. 

Case 3:06-cv-00082-WQH-BLM Document 76 Filed 11/30/11 Page 1 of 18
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

2 06cv82-WQH (BLM)

BACKGROUND

On April 28, 2003, Plaintiff applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental

security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. Administrative Record (AR) at

3, 94-97. Plaintiff alleged a disability onset date of November 9, 2001. Id. at 94. However, due

to Plaintiff’s employment from September 2002 through March 2003, the Administrative Law

Judge (“ALJ”) found that April 1, 2003 was a more appropriate date of onset. Id. at 15. The

Commissioner initially denied Plaintiff's application, and again upon reconsideration, resulting in

Plaintiff's February 17, 2004 request for an administrative hearing. Id. at 37.

On November 17, 2004, a hearing was held before ALJ Jerry F. Muskrat. Id. at 14. In a

written decision dated February 2, 2005, ALJ Muskrat determined that Plaintiff was not disabled.

Id. at 14-24. Plaintiff requested review by the Appeals Council, but this request was denied,

making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner. Id. at 4-10; see also 20 C.F.R.

§ 404.981. 

On January 13, 2006, Plaintiff filed the instant federal action. ECF No. 1. In February of

2007, the parties filed a joint motion to remand based on the fact that the Commissioner had not

yet been able to locate the recording of the administrative hearing. ECF No. 14. The

Commissioner represented that if the recording could not be located within a reasonable time, the

Commissioner would remand the case to an ALJ for a de novo hearing. Id. at 2. On February

13, 2007, the district judge granted this request and remanded the matter to the Social Security

Administration. ECF No. 15. 

On July 2, 2010, the district judge reopened the case in response to a request by the

Commissioner wherein the Commissioner represented that he was prepared to file an

administrative record of the underlying proceedings. ECF Nos. 17, 18. After having been granted

several extensions of time in which to do so (totaling over five months of additional time), Plaintiff

filed a motion for summary judgment on March 28, 2011. ECF No. 44. On May 23, 2011,

Defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition to Plaintiff's motion. ECF

Nos. 50 & 53. Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to respond to Defendant's

cross-motion on July 20, 2011 that was denied the next day. ECF Nos. 60 & 61. On August 4,

Case 3:06-cv-00082-WQH-BLM Document 76 Filed 11/30/11 Page 2 of 18
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 06cv82-WQH (BLM)

2011, Plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of the denial of the filing extension incorporated

with a motion for remand with contingencies. ECF No. 63. This motion is the subject of the

instant order

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff argues that the case should be remanded to the Social Security Office

Administration for de novo review by an ALJ of new evidence that Plaintiff submitted. ECF No.

63. Plaintiff requests that the Court: (1) stay the instant action pending the outcome of the ALJ's

review on remand; (2) set a specific deadline by which the Commissioner must have scheduled,

and an ALJ must have conducted, a de novo hearing; (3) allow Plaintiff to file a motion for default

judgment in this Court if Defendant fails to schedule and conduct a remand hearing within the

Court-ordered time frame; (4) allow Plaintiff the right to include any unfavorable decision by the

ALJ following his or her de novo review in the pending federal appeal before this Court; and

(5) allow Plaintiff to file motions before this Court, even if she is successful upon de novo review

by the ALJ, seeking compensatory and punitive damages against Defendant based on his conduct

during the prior remand of this case. Id. at 6-8.

Defendant argues that the matter should not be remanded because Plaintiff has failed to

submit new material evidence that supports a remand. ECF No. 69 at 2. Instead, Defendant

argues that Plaintiff has submitted evidence that: (1) is already in the record; (2) refers to a

period outside of the period of time under review in the ALJ’s decision; and (3) contains only

Plaintiff’s subjective statements. Id. at 3-4. Additionally, Defendants contend that Plaintiff is not

entitled to compensatory or punitive damages or any of the other relief that she has requested.

Id. at 5. 

A. LEGAL STANDARD

The Court has jurisdiction to remand a case for the consideration of new evidence, but

"only upon a showing that there is new evidence which is material and that there is good cause

for the failure to incorporate such evidence into the record in a prior proceeding." Fryer v. Astrue,

2011 WL 717284, *2 (C.D.Cal., Feb. 18, 2011) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (Sentence Six));

(citing Allen v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 726 F.2d 1470, 1473 (9th Cir.1984)). “New

Case 3:06-cv-00082-WQH-BLM Document 76 Filed 11/30/11 Page 3 of 18
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

The statutory text providing for such orders states the following: "The court may, on motion of the

Commissioner of Social Security made for good cause shown before the Commissioner files the Commissioner's

answer, remand the case to the Commissioner ... and it may at any time order additional evidence to be taken before

the Commissioner of Social Security, but only upon a showing that there is new evidence which 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).

4 06cv82-WQH (BLM)

evidence is material if (1) the evidence bears ‘directly and substantially’ on the matter in dispute,

and (2) there is a ‘reasonable possibility’ that the new evidence would have changed the outcome

of the administrative hearing.” Id. (quoting Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 462 (9th

Cir.2001)); (citing Booz v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 734 F.2d 1378, 1380 (9th

Cir.1984) (new evidence is material if there is a reasonable possibility that it would have changed

the outcome of the ALJ's determination))1. In addition, evidence is new and material only where

it relates to the period on or before the date of the ALJ's decision. Benveniste v. Astrue, 2010 WL

3582208, *3 (C.D.Cal., Sept. 9, 2010) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.970). 

The good cause requirement is met if there is new information that becomes available after

the Commissioner's final decision and the claimant could not have obtained the new evidence at

the time of the administrative proceedings. Pace v. Astrue, 2010 WL 3291753, *2 (D.Or., June

28, 2010) (citing Key v. Heckler, 754 F.2d 1545, 1551 (9th Cir.1985)).

B. PLAINTIFF’S NEW EVIDENCE

After reviewing more than 600 pages of potential new evidence submitted by Plaintiff, this

Court has determined that the documents do not constitute new and material evidence sufficient

to support a remand. ECF Nos. 63, 63-1, 63-2, 63-3, 63-4, 64, 64-1, 64-2, & 64-3. As discussed

in more detail below, the submitted documents duplicate information submitted to and considered

by the ALJ and contain untimely, irrelevant and cumulative information. 

1. Duplicate Documents

Many of the documents that Plaintiff submitted as new evidence are documents that were

already contained in the AR and, therefore, are not new. Those documents include: 

• ECF Nos. 63 at: 34 (AR at 395), 39 (AR 249), 40 (AR 398), 41 (AR 401), 44 (AR

408), and 50 (AR at 413); 63-1 at: 3 (AR at 446), 4 (AR at 472), 8 (AR at 479); 9

Case 3:06-cv-00082-WQH-BLM Document 76 Filed 11/30/11 Page 4 of 18
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

5 06cv82-WQH (BLM)

(AR at 481), and 10 (AR at 492); 63-4 at: 54 (AR at 204), 55 (AR at 203), 56 (AR

at 227), 57 (AR at 226), 78 (AR at 209), 79 (AR at 210), 80 (AR at 213), 81 (AR at

211), 82 (AR at 212), 83 (AR at 214), 84 (AR at 219), 85 (AR at 216), 87 (AR at

215), 88 (AR at 217), 89 (AR at 222), 90-92 (AR at 223-225), and 93 (AR at 220);

64 at: 8 (AR at 497), 9 (AR at 444), 10 (AR at 411), 11 (AR at 424), 12 (AR at 425),

14 (AR at 403), 15 (AR at 366), 21 (AR at 329), 74 (AR at 331); and 64-1 at: 14

(AR at 338).

Plaintiff argues that the documents identified as duplicative by Defendant are not. ECF No.

74 at 7. Plaintiff states that the documents that are contained in the AR and appear to be

duplicates are “chart copies” of her medical records “that are of poor quality and near illegible on

some areas” and stamped with the phrase “Best Copy Obtainable.” Id. Plaintiff argues that these

are different from the new documents which are her “personal patient copies” and “of greater

quality and clarity as well as legibility.” Id. Plaintiff claims that these documents are “new and

relevant to clarifying the evidence already in the record which has been poorly copied.” Id. at 8.

While the additional evidence submitted by Plaintiff may be more legible, the fact remains

that it is still the same as the evidence already contained in the administrative record. ECF Nos.

63 at: 34, 39-41, 44, and 50; 63-1 at: 3-4 and 8-10; 63-4 at: 54-57, 78-85, and 87-93; 64 at: 8-

12, 14-15, 21, and 74; and 64-1 at: 14. Therefore, the documents do not qualify as new evidence

sufficient to support a remand. Also, since the documents were already considered by the ALJ

during Plaintiff’s administrative hearing, it can not be said that there is a reasonable possibility

that these higher quality copies would have changed the outcome of the administrative hearing.

2. Documents Dated After February 2, 2005

Many of the documents that Plaintiff submitted as new evidence are dated March 2005 or

later. ECF Nos. 63-3 at 92 and 94-100; 63-4 at 1-53; 64 at 16-20, 36, 40-47, and 54-73; 64-1

at 1-8, 10, 19-20; 64-2 at 1-100 and 64-3 at 1-65. As stated above, evidence is new and material

only where it relates to the period on or before the date of the ALJ’s decision. See Benveniste,

2010 WL 3582208 at *3. In Plaintiff’s case, the ALJ’s decision is dated February 2, 2005. AR at

24. Accordingly, the Court must examine all of the documents created after February 2, 2005 to

Case 3:06-cv-00082-WQH-BLM Document 76 Filed 11/30/11 Page 5 of 18
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

6 06cv82-WQH (BLM)

determine whether they relate to Plaintiff’s medical condition on or before February 2, 2005. For

any documents that satisfy this first step, the Court must then determine whether the records are

“material” and whether there is “good cause” for the failure to include them in the original

proceeding. Fryer, 2011 WL 717284 at *2. The Court has identified the following categories of

documents that were created after February 2, 2005: 

• Southern California Spine Center documents: These documents are dated July 30,

2008 to October 3, 2008 and list the treatments Plaintiff signed up to receive during

this time period, and include intake forms that describe how Plaintiff felt before

each session, whether or not Plaintiff was doing her home exercises, and the

activities that took place at each session. ECF No. 63-3 at 92, and 94-100; and

63-4 at 1-34. Also included is an August 2, 2008 MRI of Plaintiff's back that was

performed at the request of Plaintiff's doctor at the Spine Center and low back

examination forms. ECF No. 63-4 at 24-34.

• Medical records from the University of California, San Diego (“UCSD”): These

records, which begin on October 18, 2005 and continue through January 16, 2007,

discuss Plaintiff's diagnoses of sleep apnea, fibromyalgia, and chronic pain along

with her medications during this time frame. ECF No. 63-4 at 42-43, 45-46, 58-62,

66-77. 

• Drug prior authorization request and requests for referral services from County of

San Diego: These documents dated September 3, 2005 through October 3, 2007

show Plaintiff's diagnoses of sleep apnea, fibromyalgia, and chronic pain along with

her medications and special authorized services such as the pain clinic,

rheumatology clinic and pulmonary flu visits. ECF No. 63-4 at 35-36, 41, 48, 51.

They do not contain any new information not known at the time of the

administrative hearing. AR at 14-24. 

• Adult progress notes from Operation Samahan, Inc.: These progress notes dated

August 18, 2005 through September 20, 2007 are very difficult to read, but

generally list Plaintiff's current medications, assessment/plan and physical exam

Case 3:06-cv-00082-WQH-BLM Document 76 Filed 11/30/11 Page 6 of 18
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

7 06cv82-WQH (BLM)

results. ECF No. 63-4 at 37-40, 44, 47, 49-50, and 52-53. They also note

Plaintiff's current complaints of back pain, difficulty sleeping, fibromyalgia and

chronic pain. Id. 

• Southbay Guidance Wellness and Recovery Center Records: These documents

include a letter dated December 3, 2010 acknowledging Plaintiff's treatment at

Southbay on and off from April 2004 to December 2010 and a "medical statement

concerning depression with anxiety, OCD, PTSD or panic disorder for Social Security

disability claim" also dated December 3, 2010. ECF No. 64 at: 16-20. Both

documents discuss Plaintiff's symptoms, for example, anxiety, worry thoughts, panic

attacks, sleep disturbance, and low energy and motivation. Id. Also, included are

progress notes from March 16, 2005 through October 14, 2010 that relate mostly

to Plaintiff's mental health and discuss her current condition, therapeutic

intervention, response to treatment, progress toward goals, and plan of care. ECF

Nos. 64 at 54-57, 64-65, and 90-100; 64-1 at 1-7 and 19-100; 64-2 at 1-100; and

64-3 at 1-65. The notes state how Plaintiff is dealing with her depression and

anxiety and her participation in group and individual counseling. Id. The vast

majority of these documents are not material because they do not address Plaintiff’s

medical condition prior to February 2, 2005. To the extent they do reference

treatment prior to that date, they are cumulative of information presented to the

ALJ. AR at 14-24.

• Plaintiff’s journal entries: These personal journal entries describe what Plaintiff did,

what she was thinking and how she was feeling on any given day, and cover a

range of dates from April 2006 - January 2011. ECF No. 64 at 36, and 40-47.

These journal entries do not shed any light on Plaintiff's condition prior to February

2005 and are not material. Id. 

• Initial mental health assessments: The assessments are dated April 9, 2008 and

April 13, 2009. They provide general background information on Plaintiff,

summarize her past psychiatric history, her family history, medications, and

Case 3:06-cv-00082-WQH-BLM Document 76 Filed 11/30/11 Page 7 of 18
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

8 06cv82-WQH (BLM)

substance use. ECF No. 64 at 58-63 and 66-72. They discuss Plaintiff's previous

thoughts about suicide, her fibromyalgia, and degenerative disk. Id. These issues

were considered during Plaintiff’s hearing. Id. and AR at 18-20, 319-323, and 332-

336.

• County of San Diego Health and Human Services Agency general relief medical

statement: The statement signed July 11, 2006, shows that Plaintiff was unable to

work through the end of December 2007 due to her diagnosis of "major depressive

d/o, recurrent, severe w/o psychotic features." ECF No 64 at 73. The form is not

timely and does not provide any additional information about how or why that

diagnosis was reached and is therefore simply repeating part of Plaintiff’s medical

history already known to the ALJ at the time of the 2004 hearing. AR at 18-20.

• Medication Management Forms: The forms from March 23, 2005 and June 8, 2005,

list the medications that Plaintiff was taking and the symptoms that those

medications were intended to treat. ECF No. 64-1 at: 8 and 10. These symptoms

and prescriptions were a part of the AR and considered during the November 2004

administrative hearing. AR at 18-20 and 330-332.

As summarized above, the vast majority of these documents are not material because they

do not address Plaintiff’s medical condition prior to February 2, 2005. To the extent some records

do pertain to Plaintiff’s medical condition prior to February 2, 2005, they merely provide

information that is cumulative of information already in the record and previously considered by

the ALJ and, therefore, do not support remand. See AR at 14-24, 319-323, and 330-336; see also

Rathbun v. Shalala, 5 F.3d 539 (9th Cir.1993) (stating that "to meet the materiality requirement,

the new evidence offered must bear directly and substantially on the matter in dispute" and

"cumulative evidence does not meet this standard") (quoting Burton v. Heckler, 724 F.2d 1415,

1417 (9th Cir.1984)) and (citing Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 606 (9th Cir. 1989) (evidence that

discloses nothing not already revealed is not material)).

3. Department of Motor Vehicles Employment Documents

Plaintiff also submitted a number of documents relating to her employment with the

Case 3:06-cv-00082-WQH-BLM Document 76 Filed 11/30/11 Page 8 of 18
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

9 06cv82-WQH (BLM)

Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”). These documents include the following:

• Absence and overtime reports: The reports dated as early as February 2001 through

April 2003, contain very brief descriptions about Plaintiff’s physical condition at the

time of the reports. The descriptions are Plaintiff’s own and do not contain any

additional medical support. ECF Nos. 63-1 at 13, 15-17, 19, 21, 23 and 25; 63-2

at 2, 4, 15-16, 18, 20-21 and 23-24; 63-3 at 1-4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 32-33. 

• Work schedules: The work schedules from March 24-28, 2003 list all of the

employee names, hours, and breaks. ECF No. 63-3 at 34-37. They do not contain

any relevant information regarding Plaintiff’s alleged disabilities, medical conditions,

or ability/inability to perform any type of work. Id. 

• Letters regarding Plaintiff’s absence without leave (“AWOL”) status: The letters span

from November 4, 2002 to October 4, 2004 and simply note that Plaintiff missed

work on several occasions without calling in and letting anyone know, and that she

was at risk of being charged AWOL status and separated from state service. ECF

No. 63-3 at 17, 20, 28 and 38-41.

• Requests for leaves of absence: The leave requests are generic forms and letters

discussing Plaintiff’s requests for leave. ECF No. 63-3 at 21-25, 29-30, 50, 52. The

earliest request is dated February 19, 2002 and the latest is dated April 16, 2003.

The documents include a letter from Plaintiff with additional details about her

medical condition, but there is no “new” information in the letter as it merely states

that Plaintiff has suffered from degenerative disk disease, depression, anxiety and

fibromyalgia. Id. at 22-25 and AR at 14-24 and 182-186.

• Input forms-634: The forms track information such as Plaintiff’s sick leave, hours,

vacation, FMLA hours, jury duty, and military leave and span from early 2001

through mid 2003. ECF Nos. 63-1 at 14, 18, 20, 22, 24; 63-2 at 1, 3, 5-14, 17, 19,

22, 25; 63-3 at 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15-16.

• Requests for reasonable accommodations: The requests are generic forms and

letters discussing Plaintiff’s requests for a reasonable accommodation in the form

Case 3:06-cv-00082-WQH-BLM Document 76 Filed 11/30/11 Page 9 of 18
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

10 06cv82-WQH (BLM)

of an alternative work schedule. ECF No. 63-3 at 26-27, 42-49, 51, 53-55.

• Emails: The emails from October 2002 and January and February 2004, are

between Plaintiff and her supervisors at work. ECF No. 64 at 48-53. They discuss

Plaintiff’s difficulty obtaining a physical exam due to her lack of health insurance,

her frustration with being unofficially told that her accommodation request is

unreasonable, and Plaintiff’s attempt to get social security coverage. Id.

• Performance review: The performance review from September 24, 2001, explains

how Plaintiff was doing at work and that she passed her probationary period of

employment. ECF No. 63-3 at 56-61.

• Fit for duty exam: The documents from January and February 2003 discuss

Plaintiff’s back injury in 2001, disc disease and sleep apnea and find that it was

reasonable that Plaintiffs’ injury could cause chronic and protracted low back pain.

ECF No. 63-3 at 68-73. The mandatory, state-paid medical exam was completed

by Dr. Rick Griess and states that Plaintiff could continue her job as a Motor Vehicle

Field Representative with accommodations in ”a light or modified duty setting.” Id.

at 72. 

• Letters regarding sick leave, punctuality and absences: The letters from March 19,

1999 through November 2, 2001, discuss Plaintiff’s use of sick leave and tardiness.

ECF No. 63-3 at 62-67.

• Medical certification: The form dated October 23, 2001 states that Plaintiff was

incapacitated from work on October 22, 2001 due to a (largely resolved) lumbar

disk rupture and fibromyalgia pain. ECF No. 64 at 7. It notes that Plaintiff will not

be limited to a reduced work schedule, but that Plaintiff should not lift over 20

pounds. Id.

• Pay stubs: The fall 2002 pay stubs are standard pay stubs and show how much

money was deducted from Plaintiffs’ checks for health and nonindustrial disability

insurance, but do not discuss Plaintiff’s medical conditions or alleged disabilities.

ECF No. 63-3 at 80-84. 

Case 3:06-cv-00082-WQH-BLM Document 76 Filed 11/30/11 Page 10 of 18
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

2

 Plaintiff may have submitted the DMV work records in an effort to rebut the ALJ’s determination that the

correct alleged onset date of disability is April 1, 2003. While the records relate to the correct time period, they are

not material because they would not have affected the ALJ’s determination. The ALJ determined that Plaintiff’s DMV

work was not an “unsuccessful work attempt” because it lasted more than six months and Plaintiff made substantially

more than the Substantial Gainful Activity minimum. AR at 15. This Court found that the ALJ did not err in this

determination. See, Report and Recommendation for Order Granting In Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

and Denying Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 75. 

11 06cv82-WQH (BLM)

Given the content of the work-related documents described above, this Court cannot find

that there is a reasonable possibility that the documents would have changed the outcome of the

administrative hearing.2

 The majority of the documents do not contain “new and material”

information and to the extent there is relevant information, it is cumulative of information already

in the AR. AR at 14-24 and 182-186. A sentence six remand is only appropriate where a plaintiff

establishes that there is new non-cumulative evidence. See Ingham v. Astrue, 2010 WL 1875651,

*4 (C.D.Cal. May 10, 2010). Additionally, these documents are all dated prior to Plaintiffs’

November 17, 2004 hearing and Plaintiff fails to provide good cause as to why she failed to

submit them at that time. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s work documents do not support a finding for

remand. 

4. Kaiser Permanente and UCSD Records

The next category of documents are records from Kaiser Permanente and UCSD Healthcare

including:

• Documentation of medical impairment forms: The forms spanning from April 20,

2001 through January 9, 2004 have checked boxes identifying various diagnoses

or impairments, restrictions, and time off work. ECF Nos. 63 at 33, 35, 37-38, 45,

and 49; 63-1 at 2, 5-7, and 11-12. 

• Certifications: The forms signed October 17, 2002, December 27, 2002, January 30,

2003, and July 30, 2003, list dates that Plaintiff was unable to work due to illness

and the dates that she was able to return to work. ECF Nos. 63 at 36, 42-43, and

47-48; and 63-1 at 1. 

• Letter regarding a scheduled surgery: The March 14, 2003 letter informs Plaintiff

that she is scheduled for surgery with Dr. Phillip. ECF No. 63-3 at 31. 

Case 3:06-cv-00082-WQH-BLM Document 76 Filed 11/30/11 Page 11 of 18
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

12 06cv82-WQH (BLM)

• Operative report: The report dated January 5, 2003 summarizes Plaintiff’s second

electroacupuncture treatment. ECF No. 63-4 at 86.

• Chart: The medical chart lists Plaintiff’s conditions as of December 30, 2002 as

fibromyalgia, sleep apnea, depression, and anxiety. ECF No. 63-4 at 94-96. It also

lists Plaintiff’s medications, psychosocial history, the doctor’s impressions and plan.

Id. 

• Referral authorizations: The referral authorizations from December 27, 2002, show

that Plaintiff was referred to an acupuncturist for help with her fibromyalgia pain.

ECF No. 63-4 at 97-98.

• Emergency department records: Plaintiff’s emergency department records discuss

a car accident that Plaintiff was involved in during March 1991. ECF Nos. 63-4 at

99-100; 64 at 1-2. 

• Sleep clinic documents: The March 22, 2001 sleep clinic document shows that

Plaintiff exhibited signs of “obstructive sleep apnea” and would possibly benefit from

the use of continuous positive airway pressure (“CPAP”). ECF No. 64 at 3. 

• Prescription: The prescription from December 30, 2002 is actually a note asking that

Plaintiff be excused from work one day due to her acupuncture appointment. ECF

No. 63 at 46. 

These documents do not support a finding for remand. The certifications, letter regarding

a scheduled surgery, and the emergency department records do not contain new and material

information. ECF No. 63 at 36 , 42-43, and 47-48; 63-1 at 1; 63-3 at 31; 63-4 at 99-100; and 64

at 1-2. The documentation of medical impairment forms, operative report, charts, referral

authorizations, sleep clinic documents, and prescription are cumulative of information already

contained in the AR and considered by the ALJ. ECF Nos. 63 at 33, 35, 37-38, 45, 46, and 49;

63-1 at 2, 5-7, and 11-12; 63-4 at 86, 94-98; and 64 at 3; see also AR at 14-24, 83, 182-183,

210-211, 215-216, 219, 222-225, 228, 426, 490, and 548. Additionally, all of these documents

are dated well before Plaintiff’s November 2004 hearing and Plaintiff has failed to provide good

cause as to why the documents could not have been obtained and provided to the ALJ at the time

Case 3:06-cv-00082-WQH-BLM Document 76 Filed 11/30/11 Page 12 of 18
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

13 06cv82-WQH (BLM)

of that hearing. 

5. County of San Diego Health and Human Services Agency, Mental Health Services

Documents

Another category of documents comes from the County of San Diego Health and Human

Services Agency, Mental Health Services and includes:

• Crisis relapse prevention plan from the Isis Center: The April 17, 2005 plan contains

a list of signs that Plaintiff believes indicate when she may be relapsing into crisis,

coping skills for dealing with a relapse, and a list of contacts for Plaintiff if she feels

that she is relapsing. ECF No. 64 at 22.

• Discharge and medication instructions: The discharge and medication instructions

signed April 16, 2004 simply lists the medications that were prescribed for Plaintiff

when she left the Isis Center. ECF No. 64 at 23-24.

• Interpersonal effectiveness homework sheets: The undated interpersonal

effectiveness homework sheets contain Plaintiff’s own observations about her

emotions and emotional triggers. ECF No. 64 at 37-39. 

• Personal notes: These journal-like entries from June through October 2004 contain

Plaintiff’s personal thoughts and feelings about a number of subjects including

herself, her boyfriend, love, family and pain. ECF Nos. 64 at 25-35.

• Progress notes: The progress notes begin in May 2004 and go through December

2004, and discuss Plaintiff’s depression, thoughts of suicide, medication, response

to treatment, progress, plan, and group therapy sessions. ECF Nos. 64 at 75-80,

82-83 and 88; 64-1 at 15-18; and 64-3 at 66-97. 

• General medical statement: The April 12, 2004 general relief medical statement was

completed by Dr. Donna Mills and states that Plaintiff was diagnosed with major

depression recurrent severe and that she is unable to work through the end of April

2005. ECF No. 64 at 81. 

• Initial mental health assessment: The April 5, 2004 assessment provides general

background information on Plaintiff, summarizes her past psychiatric history, her

Case 3:06-cv-00082-WQH-BLM Document 76 Filed 11/30/11 Page 13 of 18
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

14 06cv82-WQH (BLM)

family history, medications and substance use. ECF No. 64 at 84-87 and 89. It also

mentions Plaintiff’s previous thoughts about suicide, her fibromyalgia and back pain.

Id. 

• Medication management forms from the South Bay Guidance Center: The forms

from August, September and October 2004 list the medications that Plaintiff is

taking and the symptoms that those medications are intended to treat. ECF No. 64-

1 at 11-13. 

The crisis relapse prevention plan, the interpersonal effectiveness homework sheets, and

the journal-like entries are not new and material evidence. ECF No. 64 at 22, 25-35, and 37-39.

The prevention plan and homework do not provide any details regarding Plaintiff’s mental or

physical health or ability to work, and the journal-like entries contain only Plaintiff’s observations

about her feelings on a particular day. These documents, therefore, do not bear “directly and

substantially” on Plaintiff’s status and there is not a reasonable probability that the prevention

plan, homework or journal-like documents would have changed the outcome of the administrative

hearing. Id. The remaining documents also do not support a finding in favor of remand because

they contain cumulative information. ECF Nos. 64 at 23-24, and 75-89; 64-1 at 11-13 and 15-18;

and 64-3 at 66-97; see also AR at 18-24, 319-323, 332-336, 578-580, and 599; and Ingham, 2010

WL 1875651 at *4. Finally, the prevention plan, the journal-like entries, the medication

management forms, initial mental health assessment, general medical statement, most of the

progress notes, and discharge and medication instructions are dated at various times in 2004 and

were available prior to the November 2004 administrative hearing, yet Plaintiff fails to provide

good cause as to why the documents were not previously included in the record. ECF No. 63 and

74.

6. Remaining Documents

The remaining documents do not fit into any of the prior categories and include the

following:

• Notices of eligibility, determination and claim adjustment date from the State of

California/Employment Development Department regarding nonindustrial disability

Case 3:06-cv-00082-WQH-BLM Document 76 Filed 11/30/11 Page 14 of 18
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

15 06cv82-WQH (BLM)

insurance: The September 14, 2002 notice of eligibility informs Plaintiff that she was

“entitled to 182 calendar days benefit from November 20, 2001 to (not including)

May 21, 2002.” ECF No. 63-3 at 85. The September 14, 2002 notice of

determination informs Plaintiff that her “claim for nonindustrial disability insurance

has been disallowed from November 10, 2001 through November 14, 2001"

because she was “entitled to receive sick leave, vacation, CTO, holiday, or regular

pay.” Id. at 86. The September 14, 2002 notice of claim date adjustment states

that Plaintiff’s first “claim for nonindustrial disability insurance has been disallowed

beginning November 9, 2001 through November 9, 2001" because “the beginning

date must be at least one day after the last day worked unless you were

hospitalized on the last day worked” Id. at 87. The documents also include a letter

from Plaintiff providing additional information to support her claim for the insurance.

 Id. 88. 

• Job posting for a program technician and rejection letters regarding the same: This

is an employment posting from June-July 2001 for the position of program

technician with the San Diego branch of the Disability and Adult programs Division.

There are also two letters dated July 24, 2001 and September 18, 2001 showing

that Plaintiff interviewed for, but did not get the position. ECF No. 63-3 at 89-91.

• Contract for services with the Southern California Spine Center: This is a signed (but

not dated) contract for 20 DRX decompression sessions, 12 rehabilitation sessions

plus the warranty package. ECF No. 63-3 at 93.

• Physical therapy progress note: The progress note with entries from July 9, 2002

through August 6, 2002, mentions that: (1) all of Plaintiff’s movements were

painful on July 9, 2002; (2) Plaintiff had knee pain on July 21 and 25, 2002; (3)

Plaintiff had pain possibly related to her menstrual cycle on July 25, 2002; and (4)

Plaintiff was going to be using the PTX at home for treatment. The note only

discusses three days of Plaintiff’s medical history and does not contain any analysis

or conclusions. ECF No. 64 at 13.

Case 3:06-cv-00082-WQH-BLM Document 76 Filed 11/30/11 Page 15 of 18
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

The document says that it is an “Occupation Therapy Progress Notes - Continued,” but we do not have the

preceding pages to the note.

16 06cv82-WQH (BLM)

• Interview confirmation notice from the Department of Fair Employment and

Housing: The notice confirms that Plaintiff had an appointment for an interview with

the Department of Fair Employment & Housing. ECF No. 63-3 at 18-19.

• Fibromyalgia printout: This printout defines fibromyalgia and discusses the causes,

symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment of the condition. ECF No. 63-4 at 63-65.

None of these documents constitute new material evidence that supports a finding for

remand. See ECF Nos. 63-3 at 18-19, 85-91 and 93; 63-4 at 63-65; and 64 at 13. The

documents do not “bear directly and substantially” on the matter in dispute, Plaintiff’s alleged

disability, and there is no “reasonable probability” that these documents would have changed the

outcome of Plaintiff’s administrative hearing. Mayes, 276 F.3d at 462 (citing Booz, 734 F.2d at

1380). With the exception of the physical therapy progress note, the documents do not contain

any discussion of Plaintiff’s medical history, her pain, her alleged disability or her ability or inability

to perform certain tasks or work. See ECF Nos. 63-3 at 18-19, 85-91 and 93; 63-4 at 63-65; and

64 at 13. The physical therapy note does discuss Plaintiff’s pain, but the note is incomplete3, only

focuses on three days, and would not have changed the outcome of the administrative hearing.

ECF No. 64 at 13. 

Furthermore, the nonindustrial disability documents are from 2002, the job posting

documents are dated between June and September 2001, the interview confirmation provides an

interview date of March 23, 2004 and the physical therapy note is from 2002. The documents,

therefore, were in existence prior to Plaintiff’s administrative hearing in November 2004. ECF Nos.

63-3 at 18-19 and 89-91; 64 at 13. The documents are not evidence that became available after

the Commissioner's final decision and that the Plaintiff could not have obtained at the time of the

administrative proceedings. See Pace, 2010 WL3291753 at 2. Plaintiff does not provide any

explanation at all, let alone good cause, for not previously including this evidence in the record.

See ECF Nos. 63 & 74.

Case 3:06-cv-00082-WQH-BLM Document 76 Filed 11/30/11 Page 16 of 18
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

17 06cv82-WQH (BLM)

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Motion for

Remand with Contingencies be DENIED. Because the Court finds no support for Plaintiff’s

requested remand, the Court DENIES AS MOOT the conditions Plaintiff wanted to include in any

remand order. See ECF No. 63 at 6-7. In addition, the Court notes that several of the requested

conditions are not permitted under applicable law. See, e.g., Heckler v. Day, 467 U.S. 104, 119

n.33 (1984) (stating that a district court may not impose on the Commissioner absolute time limits

applicable to all disability claims and overruling court-imposed injunction on behalf of a state-wide

class of social security disability claimants against the Secretary of Health and Human Services,

which required that claims be processed within a fixed time period); Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487

U.S. 412, 425 (1988) (acknowledging that "suffering months of delay in receiving the income on

which one has depended for the very necessities of life cannot be fully remedied by the ‘belated

restoration of back benefits,'" but concluding that Congress had not provided for "a remedy in

damages for emotional distress or for other hardships suffered because of delays in their receipt

of Social Security benefits" and dismissing the case); and Kenney v. Barnhart, 2006 WL 2092607,

*7 (C.D.Cal. July 26, 2006) (finding that “a claimant pursuing relief under Section 405(g) may not

seek or receive consequential and punitive damages” and dismissing plaintiff’s action for failing

to provide any jurisdictional foundation for this type of action).

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:06-cv-00082-WQH-BLM Document 76 Filed 11/30/11 Page 17 of 18
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

18 06cv82-WQH (BLM)

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any written objections to this Report and Recommendation

must be filed with the Court and served on all parties no later than December 21, 2011. The

document should be captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be filed with the Court

and served on all parties no later than January 11, 2012. The parties are advised that failure

to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal

of the Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998).

DATED: November 30, 2011

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00082-WQH-BLM Document 76 Filed 11/30/11 Page 18 of 18