FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT OCT 26, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 11789 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 5 - 0 1 2 6 6 - CV - O RL- 1 9 K RS A L A N P I L N I C K , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s C O M M I S S I O N E R O F S O C I A L S E C U R I T Y A D M I N I S T R A T I O N , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 26, 2007) B efo re T JO F L A T , D U B IN A an d C A RN E S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A lan P il n ickap p ea ls th e d istrict co u rt’s o rd eraf firm in g th e C o m m issio n er ’s2

d e n i a l o f h i s ap p l i c a t i o n f

o rd i s ab i l i ty i n s u r a n c e b e n e f i t s , 4 2 U. S . C . § 4 0 5 ( g ) . He ra i se s tw o i ss ues i n h i s bri ef: 1) “ w he the rthe . . . A L J [ the A dm i ni s tr a t i ve L a w J udge ] c ons i de r e d s i de e f f e c t s of m e di c a t i ons tha t[ P i l ni c k] w a s t a ki ng a s r e qui r e d by 20 C . F . R . [ §] 404. 1529( c ) ( 3) ( i v) a nd C ow art v. Schw eike r , 66 2 F . 2d 73 1, 73 5 (11 th C i r. 19 81 )” ; a nd 2) “ w hether goo d cause exi st s t o rem and the ca se t o the C om m i ss i on er be c aus e the r e i s ne w , non- c um ul a t i ve e vi de nc e , tha tthe e vi de nc e i s m a t e r i a l t o the is s u e o f w h e th e rth e A L J c o n s id e r e d th e s id e e f f e c ts o f m e d ic a tio n s th a t w o u ld c ha nge the a dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e s ul t , a nd the r e i s good c aus e f orf a i l ur e t o s ubm i tthe e v id e n c e a t th e a d m in is tr a tiv e le v e l.” B r ie f o f A p p e lla n t a t 1 . W e c o n d u c t alim ite d r e v ie w o f th e A L J 's d e c is io n " to d e te rm in e if it is supp ort ed by subst ant i al evi dence and based on p roper l egal st andards. " C raw ford v. C om m ' r, 36 3 F . 3d 11 55 , 11 58 (11th C i r. 20 04 ). "S ub st ant i al evi dence i s m ore tha n as c i nt i l l aa nd i s s uc h r e l e va nte vi de nc e a s ar e a s onabl e pe r s on w oul d a c c e pt as adequat e t o sup po rta c on cl usi on . . . . E ven i f the evi dence prepond er at es a g a in s t th e C o m m is s io n e r 's f in d in g s , w e m u s t a f

f irm if th e d e c is io n r e a c h e d is s upport e d by s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e . " I d. a t1158- 59 ( quot a t i on a nd c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . W e do notr e w e i gh the e vi de nc e ors ubs t i tut e ourj udgm e ntf ortha tof the A L J. D ye r v. B arnh ar dt , 39 5 F . 3d 12 06 , 12 10 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). O n the other ha nd, w e w i l l r e ve r s e w he r e the A L J f a i l s t o appl y the c orr e c tl a w or“ pr ovi de the3

re vi ew i ng courtw i th suffi ci entre as on i ng for det erm i ni ng thatthe prop erl egal a na l y s i s ha s be e n c onduc t e d. ” K e e t on v. D e p’ tof H e a l th a nd H um a n S e rvi c e s , 21 F . 3d 10 64 , 10 66 (11th C i r. 19 94 ).

I. T h e A L J h as th e b asi c o b l i g at i o n t o d ev el o p th e reco rd fu l l y an d fai rl y, a l though the c l a i m a ntha s the bur de n of pr ovi ng tha the i s unde radi s abi l i ty a nd the r e s pons i bi l i ty of

pr oduc i ng e vi de nc e i n s upport . E l l i s on v. B a rnha rt , 355 F . 3d 1 2 7 2 , 1 2 7 6 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). W ith re sp ec t t o an u n re p re se n ted claim an t, th e A L J’s obl i ga t i on t o de ve l op the r e c or d be c om e s as pe c i a l duty t o “ s c rupul ous l y a nd c o n s c ie n tio u s lyp r o b e in to , in q u ir e o f , a n d e x p lo r e a ll th e r e le v a n t f a c ts ,” a n d to e ns ur e w i th di l i ge nc e tha tf a vor abl e a nd unf

a vor abl e f

a c t s a r e e l i c i t e d. G r a ha m v. A pf e l , 129 F . 3d 1420, 1423 ( 11th C i r . 1997) ( quot i ng C ow a rtv. S c hw e i ke r , 662 F .2 d 7 3 1 , 7 3 5 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 8 1 )) . A s a re su lt , w h er e a n u n re p re se n ted claim an t’ s h e a r i n g t e s t i mo n y r a i s e s aq u e s t i o n a s t o th e s i d e - e f f e c t s o f me d i c a t i o n s , th e ALJ h a s th e s p e c ia l d u tyto e lic it f u rth e rte s tim o n y o ro th e rw is e m a k e af in d in g in re gard t o such si de-e ff

ec t s. C ow art , 66 2 F . 2d at73 5. In contra st , w here a re pres ent ed cl ai m antm akes a s i m i l arst at em ent , bu tdo es no totherw i se al l ege that the s i de - e f

f e c t s c ontr i but e t o the a l l e ge d di s abi l i ty , the A L J doe s note rri n f a i l i ng4

“ t o i nqui r e f

urthe ri nt o pos s i bl e s i de [ - ] e f f e c t s . ” C he rry v. H e c kl e r , 760 F . 2d 1186, 1 1 9 1 n .7 ( d is tin g u is h in g C o w a rt) . P i l ni ck has notshow n thatthe A L J f ai l ed t o app l y the corre ctl egal s t a nda r ds , a s the c i r c um s t a nc e s gi vi ng r i s e t o a“ s pe c i a l duty ” i n C ow a rtw e r e not pres ent , and the A L J c i t ed t o the approp ri at e f eder al re gu l at i on s. M oreover, P i l ni ck has notshow n h ow the A L J f ai l ed t o d evel op a f

ul l and fai r r ec ord such th a t h e w a s p r e

ju d ic e d d u e to “e v id e n tia ry g ap s ” o n th e is s u e o f s id e - e f f e c ts . G r a ha m , 129 F . 3d a t1423. F i na l l y , the A L J ’ s de c i s i on a c c ount e d f orthe p o s s ib ilityth a t s o m e o f P iln ic k ’s s y m p to m s m a y h a v e r e s u lte d f r o m ar e a c tio n to m edi ca t i on and thu s e ff ec t i vel y s um m ar i ze d the l i m i t ed m edi ca l evi dence prod uced by P i l ni ck on thi s i ss ue. II . “S e c tio n 4 0 5 ( g ) p e rm its ad is tr ic t c o u rt to r e m a n d a n ap p lic a tio n f o rb e n e f its t o the C om m i ss i on er. . . by tw o m etho ds, w hi ch ar e c om m on l y denom i nat ed

‘ s e nt e nc e f

ourr e m a nds ’ a nd ‘ s e nt e nc e s i x r e m a nds . ’ ” I ngr a m v. A s true , N o. 06- 1 4 6 0 2 m an . o p . at2 7 (1 1 th C i r. A u g u st2 3 , 2 0 0 7 ). T h e co u rtm ay rem an d a case un der s ent ence si x “ up on a s ho w i ng thatthere i s new evi dence w hi ch i s m at er i al a nd tha tthe r e i s good c aus e f orthe f a i l ur e t o i nc orpor a t e s uc h e vi de nc e i nt o the r e c o r d in ap r io rp r o c e e d in g .” 4 2 U .S .C . § 4 0 5 ( g ) . A c c o r d in g ly , s e n te n c e s ix5

encom pass es on l y tho se i nst ance s i n w hi ch “ the di stri ctcourtl earns of e vi dence noti n e xi s t e nc e ora va i l abl e t o the c l a i m a nta tthe t i m e of the a dm i ni s tr a t i ve pr oc e e di ng tha tm i ghtha ve c ha nge d the out c om e of tha tpr oc e e di ng. ” I ngr a m , N o. 06- 14602 m a n. op. a t26 ( quot i ng S ul l i va n v. F i nke l s t e i n, 496 U . S . 617, 626, 110 S .C t. 2 6 5 8 , 2 6 6 4 , 1 1 0 L .E d .2 d 5 6 3 ( 1 9 9 0 ) ) . I n c ontr a s t , unde rs e nt e nc e f ourac ourtm a y “ e nt e r , upon the pl e a di ngs a nd tr a ns c r i ptof

the r e c or d, aj udgm e nta f f i rm i ng, m odi f

y i ng, orr e ve r s i ng the de c i s i on of the C om m i s s i one r. . . w i th orw i thoutr e m a ndi ng the c aus e f orar e he a r i ng. ” 42 U . S . C . § 405( g) . A s ar e s ul t , w he n r e vi e w i ng the f i na l de c i s i on of

the C om m i ss i on er , a c ou rtm ayre m and for a re hear i ng base d o n n ew evi dence und er s e n te n c e f

o u rw h e n th e c la im a n t p r e s e n ts s u c h e v id e n c e to th e A p p e a ls C o u n c il, and the A pp ea l s C ou nci l erroneou sl y deni es re vi ew af t erconsi deri ng the new e vi de nc e . S e e I ngr a m , N o. 06- 14602 m a n. op. a t2, 14, 25. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt c o rr e c tlyd e te rm in e d th a t P iln ic k ’s m e d ic a tio n s f o rm d id notw a rr a ntr e m a ndi ng thi s c a s e t o the C om m i s s i one r . T he onl y i nf orm a t i on on th is f o rm is alis t o f

th e m e d ic a tio n s th a t P iln ic kw a s p r e s c r ib e d . H o w e v e r , th is i nform at i on w as det ai l ed throu gh ou tthe adm i ni stra t i ve re cord and i s not“ new . ” F urther, w hi l e s ever al po t ent i al si de-e ff ec t s are al so un derl i ned i n the att ac hed i nform at i on on ea ch pres cr i pt i on drug , such as drow si ness , di zz i ness and b l urre d6

v i si o n , th ese sym p t o m s al so are d o cu m en t ed i n P i l n i ck ’ s m ed i cal reco rd s. A s a r e s u l t , th e A LJ w a s a w a r e o f th e me d i c a t i o n s Pi l n i c kw a s t a k i n g a n d th e s y mp t o ms th ath e h ad ex p eri en ced . In su m , P i l n i ckh as n o tsh o w n h o w i n cl u si o n o f th ese d o c u m e n ts a t th e a d m in is tr a tiv e le v e l w o u ld h a v e c h a n g e d th e r e s u lt. AF F I R ME D.