Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05803/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05803-4/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 (DIWW)

---

Case No.: 13-cv-05803-NC

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL L. HELD,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN COLVIN,

Defendant.

Case No.13-cv-05803-NC 

REQUEST FOR SUPPLEMENTAL 

BRIEFING

Re: Dkt. No. 35

On August 29, 2014, pro se plaintiff Paul Held filed with the Court a medical report 

signed by his treating physician Dr. Joseph R. Meyers, and dated August 27, 2014 

(“Meyers 2014 report”). Dkt. 35 (entitled “Physical Residual Functional Capacity 

Assessment” and labeled “Exhibit A” to plaintiff’s motion to remand). In this report, Dr. 

Meyers states, “The patient’s disability has not improved since Dr. Lavorgna’s 2005 

report; the patient has actually be[c]ome more symptomatic over the ensuing 9 years. 

Therefore it is difficult to me to ascertain how the patient could suddenly become ‘better’ 

with NO change in MRI or x-rays or clinical symptoms.” Dkt. No. 35 at 6. Held 

submitted the Meyers 2014 report after Colvin filed a cross motion for summary judgment. 

Dkt. No. 32. Thus, Colvin’s motion did not address or evaluate this document. 

Under the Social Security Act, the district court 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 

Case 3:13-cv-05803-NC Document 37 Filed 01/30/15 Page 1 of 2
Case No.:13-cv-05803-NC 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

incorporate such evidence into the record in a prior proceeding.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

To be material, new evidence must bear directly and substantially on the matter in 

dispute. Burton v. Heckler, 724 F.2d 1415, 1417 (9th Cir. 1984) (citation omitted). 

Evidence is material where there is a “reasonable possibility that the new evidence would 

have changed the outcome of the Secretary’s determination had it been before him.” Booz 

v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 734 F.2d 1378, 1380 (1984) (emphasis added) 

(citation omitted). “The good cause requirement often is liberally applied, where . . . there 

is no indication that a remand for consideration of new evidence will result in prejudice to 

the Secretary.” Burton, 724 F.2d at 1417-18 (citation omitted). If the record is 

incomplete, it is within the court’s discretion to remand the case for consideration of 

additional evidence. Ramirez v. Shalala, 8 F.3d 1449, 1455 (9th Cir .1993). 

Here, the Court’s tentative view is that the Meyers 2014 report meets the standards 

for materiality and good cause under Ninth Circuit law. But because the Court has not 

heard Colvin’s position on this issue, the Court requests that Colvin submit additional 

briefing regarding this document within 21 days. Specifically, Colvin should address 

whether the Meyers 2014 report is material and whether Held has shown good cause for 

his failure to introduce this evidence in prior proceedings. If Colvin believes that the Court 

should not consider this report in its analysis, she should explain why. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2015 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:13-cv-05803-NC Document 37 Filed 01/30/15 Page 2 of 2