Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01595/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01595-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL ANTHONY WILLMAN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12-CV-1595-IEG (RBB)

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

AUGMENT THE RECORD

[Doc. No. 16]

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

Presently before the Court is the motion of Michael Anthony Willman (“Plaintiff”) to

augment the record to include enclosures sent to the Appeals Council. [Doc. No. 16, Pl.’s Mot.;

Doc. No. 16-2, Enclosures.] Plaintiff argues that these enclosures were faxed to the Appeals

Council on November 16, 2011 with his brief, but were not included in the administrative record. 

[Doc. No. 16-3, Fax Confirmation; Doc. No. 16-1, Pl.’s Mot. at 1-2.]

In a Social Security appeal, the Ninth Circuit in Ramirez v. Shalala reviewed the entire

record, which included additional submissions made to the Appeals Council after the petitioner’s

hearing before the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). 8 F.3d 1449, 1451-52 (9th Cir. 1993). The

Appeals Council must evaluate “new and material evidence” if “it relates to the period on or

before the date of the [ALJ] hearing decision.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.970(b); see also Nelson v.

Sullivan, 966 F.2d 363, 366 (8th Cir. 1992). The ALJ hearing decision in the instant case is dated

December 10, 2010. [Administrative Record (“AR”) 30.] The enclosures show that the figures

are from the U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Outlook Handbook dated 2008-2009 and

- 1 - 12cv1595

Case 3:12-cv-01595-IEG-RBB Document 25 Filed 02/20/13 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

present estimates for 2010. [Doc. No. 16-2, Enclosures; Doc. No. 22, Pl.’s Reply at 3-4.] 

Therefore, they relate to the period on or before the date of the ALJ hearing decision. Because the

scope of this Court’s review includes determining whether the Appeals Council abused its

discretion in failing to remand for a change in the weight of the evidence, see Macri v. Chater, 93

F.3d 540, 544 (9th Cir. 1996), the Court must consider all of the evidence that was before the

Appeals Council. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to augment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 20, 2013 ______________________________

IRMA E. GONZALEZ

United States District Judge

- 2 - 12cv1595

Case 3:12-cv-01595-IEG-RBB Document 25 Filed 02/20/13 Page 2 of 2