UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Anita Colon-Lockhart,

Plaintiff, 

Case No: 14-14336

Hon. VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

v.

Commissioner of 

Social Security,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT 

AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Anita Colon-Lockhart (“Colon-Lockhart”) appeals the Commissioner of

Social Security’s denial of her application for Disability Insurance Benefits. The parties

filed cross-motions for summary judgment which the Court referred to Magistrate Judge

R. Steven Whalen. In a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) dated December 29,

2015, Magistrate Judge Whalen recommended Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment be granted. Colon-Lockhart filed timely objections to the R&R. Those

objections are fully briefed and before this Court for final decision. 

While the R&R was pending for consideration, Colon-Lockhart filed a Motion and

Brief to Amend Complaint and Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #25). Defendant

responded. 

1

2:14-cv-14336-VAR-RSW Doc # 28 Filed 03/25/16 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 524
These Motions are DENIED. 

II. Discussion

Colon-Lockhart says that while this matter has been pending, she filed a new

application for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits. Based on the new

application, the Social Security Administration determined Colon-Lockhart met the

requirements for disability as of August 10, 2013, the day after the unfavorable ALJ

decision which is at issue. 

Colon-Lockhart says this determination of disability should be considered new

and material evidence concerning the severity of her disability. Colon-Lockhart says this

evidence was not available at the time of the ALJ decision and is highly material. 

 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g) contains two sentences which discuss federal court

remands, often referenced as “sentence four” and “sentence six.” See, Melkonyan v.

Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 90 (1991). Under sentence four, the court may remand in

conjunction with a substantive ruling affirming, modifying, or reversing the

Commissioner’s decision. Id. at 98. The Court may reverse with or without remanding

the case for a hearing. Id. However, the Court may not remand under sentence four

based on evidence that was not presented to the ALJ. DeLong v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Admin., 748 F.3d 723, 725 n.3 (6th Cir. 2014). Under sentence six, the court may

remand in light of additional evidence without making a substantive ruling as to the

correctness of the decision, but only if the evidence is material and the claimant shows

good cause for failing to present it earlier. Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. at 100. 

In this motion for Summary Judgment, Colon-Lockhart requests remand under

2

2:14-cv-14336-VAR-RSW Doc # 28 Filed 03/25/16 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 525
sentence four with an order to enter an award of benefits, or in the alternative, a new

hearing. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Alternatively, Colon-Lockhart seeks to have Defendant’s

decision set aside and the matter remanded for new proceedings under sentence six.

Colon-Lockhart also asks to be allowed to amend her complaint.

Colon-Lockhart’s argument is unavailing. Colon-Lockhart asks for relief on the

basis of evidence that was not before the ALJ - this is inappropriate under sentence

four. DeLong v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 748 F.3d at0 725 n.3 (6th Cir. 2014). 

Colon-Lockart’s alternative request for relief under sentence six also fails. The

mere existence of a subsequent favorable decision, without more, is not evidence that

can change the outcome of a prior proceeding under a sentence six remand. Allen v.

Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 561 F.3d 646, 653 (6th Cir. 2009). A sentence six remand is

appropriate only if the subsequent decision is supported by new and material evidence

which the claimant had good cause for not raising in the prior proceeding. Id. The

claimant has the burden to show more than the possibility of new evidence; he or she

must also show that there actually is new evidence which is material and that there is

good cause for failure to incorporate it into the prior record. Id. 

Colon-Lockhart does not meet her burden. She attached the new favorable

decision to her Motion. However, she fails to address whether there is any new and

material evidence that supports the decision. Nor does she discuss why it was not part

of the prior record. On these facts, Allen controls and a remand is not warranted. 

III. Conclusion

Colon-Lockhart’s Motions (Doc. #25) are DENIED. 

3

2:14-cv-14336-VAR-RSW Doc # 28 Filed 03/25/16 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 526
IT IS ORDERED.

S/Victoria A. Roberts 

Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

Dated: March 25, 2016

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of record

by electronic means or U.S. Mail on March 25,

2016.

s/Linda Vertriest 

Deputy Clerk

4

2:14-cv-14336-VAR-RSW Doc # 28 Filed 03/25/16 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 527