## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 1- 18 82

__ __ __ __ __ _
Carl W hi tn ey , *

* App el la nt , *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e

* East ern Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s. Mi ch ael J. As tru e, Co m

m is si on er, * So ci al Secu rit y

Adm in is tra ti on , *

* App el le e. *

__ __ __ __ __ _
Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

10 , 20 12 Fi le d: Feb ru ary 15 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ _
Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , MELLOY and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ _ SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Carl W hi tn ey ap pe al s th e di st r i c t co ur t’s affi rm an ce of th e So ci al Secu rit y Co m m is si on er’s (Co m

m is si on er) de ci si on to de ny h i m di sa bi li ty be ne fit s an d

su pp le m en ta l se cu rit y in co m e un de r th e So ci al Secu rit y Act (th e Act)

. In th is ap pe al
, W hi tn ey cl ai m s th at th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ha ve fo un d th at he su bm it te d a m ed ic al

rep or t fro m Dr. Mar y Ell en Zio lk o to th e App eal s C o u n c i l t ha t was no t co ns id ered

an d th at hi s cas e sh ou ld th eref or e ha ve be en rem an de d to th e A p p e a l s Co un ci l fo r

co ns id erat io n of th e ne w an d m at eri al ev id en ce. W e ag ree th at th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ha ve de te rm in ed whe th er W hi tn ey pr op erl y su bm it te d th e ne w ev id en ce un de r20 C.F.R. § 40 4.9 70 (b ), an d th us we rem an d th is m at te r to th e di st ric t co ur t to m ak e

th at de te rm in at io n.

In Aug us t 20 07
, W hi tn ey fil ed hi s ap pl ic at io n fo r di sa bi li ty in su ran ce be ne fit s

un de r Tit le II of th e Act, 42 U.S.C. § 42 3, an d fo r su pp le m en ta l se cu rit y in co m e

un de r Tit le XVI of th e Act, 42 U.S.C. § 13 82

. W hi tn ey al l e g e d di sa bi li ty du e to

v a rio us ph y si cal co nd it io ns in cl ud in g art hr it is
, ba ck an d ne ck pa in
, br eat h i n g
pr ob le m s, as well as m en ta l de fic ie nc ie s an d de pr es si on

. Afte r th e in it ia l de ni al an d

reco ns id erat io n, an Adm in is tra ti ve Law Ju dg e (ALJ) co nd uc te d a he ari ng on Ju ly 9,
20 09
, an d is su ed a de ci si on on Sep te m be r 9, 20 09
, de te rm in in g th at W hi tn ey was no t di sa bl ed un de r th e Act. As rel ev an t, th e ALJ de te rm in ed th a t t he reco rd di d no t

es ta bl is h an y m en ta l im

pa irment s u c h as a co gn it iv e or in te ll ig en ce qu ot ie nt (IQ)
de fic ie nc y

.

On Feb ru a r y 1 1
, 20 10
, W hi tn ey was se en by Dr. Mar y Ell en Zio lk o, a
ps y ch ol og is t. In a rep or t, Dr. Zio lk o de te rm in ed th at W hi tn ey ha d a fu ll -s cal e IQ of
57 an d fel l in th e m il d ret ard at io n ran ge in read in g, sp el li ng , an d ari th m et ic

. Sh e al so di ag no se d hi m wit h a de pr es si ve di so rd er an d as si gn ed hi m a G l o b a l Ass es sm en t
Fu nc ti on in g s co re o f 50

.

W hi tn ey co nt en ds th at on Feb ru ary 19
, 20 10
, he su bm it te d Dr. Zio lk o’s rep or t

to th e App eal s Co un ci l vi a facs im il e. Howev er, whe n th e App eal s Co un ci l’s de ci si on de nyin g W hi tn ey ’s req ue st fo r rev ie w was is su ed on May 24
, 20 10
, it f a i l e d to ack no wled ge rece ip t of th e rep or t. The App eal s Co un ci l de ci si on di d, ho wev er,

reco gn iz e th at it ha d rece iv ed ot he r ad di ti on al ev id en ce th at W hi tn ey su bm it te d aft er th e ALJ i ss ue d h is de ci si on

.

In hi s ap pe al to th e di st ric t co ur t, W hi tn ey arg ue d th at th e App eal s Co un ci l
fai le d t o co ns id er Dr. Zio lk o’s re po rt a nd att ach ed a co py of th e rep or t t o h is bri ef.
W hi tn ey al so at ta ch ed a co py of th e f a c s i m il e tra ns m is si on rep or t sh owi ng th at , at

- 2

-l e a s t acco rd in g to hi s co un se l’s facs im il e m ach in e, th e rep or t was rece iv ed by t h e

App eal s Co un ci l. W hi tn ey ’s br ie f to th e di st ric t co ur t wen t as tra y in a r g u i n g th at

“ [t]o r em an d a cas e, ne w evi de nc e m us t b e m at eri al , and th ere m us t b e ‘go od cau se fo r th e fai lu re to in co rp or at e su ch ev id en ce in to th e reco rd in a pr io r pr oc eed in g.’ 42
U

. S.C. § 40 5( g) .” (Whit ne y ’s Br., Doc

. 12
, at 11 .) Howev er he al so arg ue d t h a t

rem an d w as ap pr opri at e un de r 20 C.F.R. § 40 4.9 76 (a)( 1)
, 20 C.F.R. § 40 4.9 70 (b ), an d
Lam p v. Ast ru e, 53 1 F.3 d 62 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). In res po n s e , t h e C om m is si on er ad dr es se d on ly whe th er rem an d was ap pr op ria te un de r se nt en ce si x of 42 U.S.C. § 40 5( g)
, fo cu si ng la rg el y on W hi tn ey ’s fai lu re to sh ow go od cau se fo r no t su bm it ti ng th e rep or t to th e ALJ. The di st ric t co ur t li ke wis e co ns id ered Dr. Zio lk o’s rep or t on ly

un de r 42 U.S.C. § 40 5( g)
, ho ld in g W hi tn ey “ [d id ] no t exp la in why th e rep or t of Dr.
Zio lk o co ul d no t ha ve be en ob ta in ed in a ti m el y fas hi on

. . . [an d] [a]s a res ul t, th ere is no t g oo d c au se for

co ns id eri ng th e rep or t.” (Ord er at 5.)

Befo re th is co ur t, W hi tn ey ack no wled ge s th at hi s ap pe al br ie f to th e di st ric t

co ur t “ co ul d ha ve be en m or e art ic ul at e,” b ut he m ai nt ai ns th at th e b as is for rem an d

un de r th e reg ul at io ns was st at ed an d sh ou ld ha ve be en co ns id ered by th e di st ric t

co ur t. The Co m

m is si on er res po nd s th at W hi tn ey on ly req ue st ed rel ie f un de r 42 U.S.C. § 4 05 (g ), an d t hu s h as waiv ed an y arg um en t o n t he reg ul at io ns

.

The reg ul at io n a t i ss ue pro vi de s:

If ne w an d m at eri al ev id en ce is su bm it te d, th e App eal s Co un ci l sh al l

co ns id er th e ad di ti on al ev id en ce on ly whe r e i t rel at es to th e pe rio d on

or be fo re th e da te of th e ad m in is tra ti ve la w jud ge he ari ng de ci si on

. The App eal s Co un ci l sh al l ev al ua te th e en ti re reco rd in cl ud in g th e ne w an d

- 3

-m at eri al ev id en ce su bm it te d if it rel at es to th e p eri od on or be fo re th e da te of th e

ad m in is tra ti ve law ju dg e h eari ng de ci si on

.

20 C.F.R. § 40 4.9 70 (b ). 1

“ Und er th is reg ul at io n, if a cla im an t fil es ad di ti on al m ed ic al ev id en ce wit h a
req ue st fo r rev ie w pr io r to th e da te of th e [Co m m is si on er’s] fin al de ci si on , th e App eal s Cou nc il MUST con si de r th e ad di ti on al ev id en ce if th e ad di ti on al ev id en ce is (a) ne w, (b ) m at eri al
, an d (c) rel at es to th e pe rio d on or be fo re th e da te of th e ALJ’s
de ci si on .” W il li am s v. Su l l i v a n , 9 0 5 F.2 d 21 4, 21 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 90 ) (em ph as is in

or ig in al ). The App eal s Co un ci l’s fai lu re to co ns id er th e ev id en ce “ m ay be a ba si s fo r

rem an d b y

a rev ie win g c ou rt.” Box v. Sh al al a, 52 F.3d 16 8, 1 71 (8t h C ir. 1 99 5)

.

In Lam p, we ad dr es se d a si m il ar si tu at io n. The r e , t h e ALJ was co nc ern ed
ab ou t an ap pa ren t co nf

li ct be twee n th e t r e a t i n g ph y si ci an ’s m ed ic al reco rd s an d a

s e p a r a t e le tt er th e ph y si ci an su bm it te d to th e ALJ op in in g th at th e pe ti ti on er was di sa bl ed

. Lam

p, 53 1 F.3 d at 63 1. Att em pt s by th e ALJ to co nt act th e ph y si ci an pr io r
to is su an ce of a de ci si on were un su cces sf ul
, bu t aft er th e ALJ is s u e d h i s op in io n de nyin g b en efi ts , pet it io ne r su bm it te d t o t he App eal s Cou nc il an un da te d let te r an d

W e n ot e th at th e reg ul at io ns als o p ro vi de : 1

The App eal s Co un ci l wil l co ns id er al l th e ev id en ce in th e ad m in is tra ti ve la w jud ge he ari ng re co rd as well as an y ne w an d m at eri al ev id en ce

su bm it te d to it whi ch rel at es to th e pe rio d on or be fo re th e da te of th e ad m in is tra ti v e la w jud ge he ari ng de ci si on

. If y ou su bm it ev id en ce wh i c h d o e s no t rel at e to th e pe rio d on or be fo re th e da te of th e

a dm in is tra ti ve la w jud ge he ari ng de ci si on , th e App eal s Co un ci l wil l
ret ur n th e a d d i t i on al ev id en ce to y ou wit h an ex pl an at io n as to why it di d no t acce pt th e ad di ti on al ev id en ce an d wil l ad vi se y ou of y ou r rig ht
to fil e a n ew ap pl ic at io n.

20 C.F.R. § 40 4.9 76 (b )(1 ).

- 4

-a se pa rat e, da te d le tt er fro m th e tre at in g ph ys i c i an ex pl ai ni ng th e di sc rep an cy

be twee n th e tre at in g no te s an d hi s op in io n of di sa bi l i t y. Id

. In it s or de r de nyin g

rev ie w, th e App eal s C ou nc il no te d t ha t i t h ad rece iv ed ad di ti on al ev id en ce an d h ad

m ad e th at pa rt of th e reco rd in th e cas e, bu t th e App eal s Co un ci l on ly refe ren ced th e da te d le tt er as ha vi ng be e n r e c e iv ed an d co ns id ered

. Id

. W e de te rm in ed th at “ th e

reco rd cl earl y i n di cat e[d ] th at [p et it io ne r’s] at to rn ey su bm it te d th [e] un da te d le tt er al on g wit h [th e tre at in g ph y si ci an ’s da t e d ] s t a t em en t,” bu t we co ul d no t de te rm in e

“ [w]het he r th e App eal s Co un ci l rev ie wed th e un da te d le tt er whe n it co ns id ered [th e
tre at in g ph y si ci an ’s da te d] st at em en t.” Id

. at 63 2. Thu s, we rem an de d th e m at te r to th e di st ric t co ur t wit h in st ru ct io ns to rem an d to th e ALJ “ [b ]ecaus e we [were ] un ab le

to di sc ern whe th er th e App eal s Co un ci l co ns id ered th is ne w an d m at eri al ev id en ce.”
Id . at 6 33

.

W hi tn ey arg ue d to th e di st ric t co ur t th at he su bm it te d ne w, m at eri al ev id en ce
to th e App eal s Co un ci l th at was no t co ns id ered by th e App eal s Co un ci l. In su pp or t, he at ta ch ed a co py o f Dr. Zio lk o’s rep or t al on g wit h a fa c s i mi l e t r an sm is si on sh eet sh owi ng th at th e facs im il e tra ns m it te d co rrec tl y

. The di st ric t co ur t di d no t co ns id er whe th er th e rep or t ha d be en pr op erl y su bm it te d un de r 20 C.F.R. § 40 4.9 70 (b ). Rat he r th e co ur t fo cu se d on whe th er th e rep or t co ul d be co ns id ered un de r 42 U.S.C. § 40 5( g)

a n d d e t e r mine d th at W hi tn ey ha d fai le d to sh ow go od cau se fo r no t su bm it ti ng th e
rep or t s oo ne r.

The Co m m is si on er’s br ie f is si le nt on th e qu es ti on of whe th er W hi tn ey in fact
ti m el y su bm it te d Dr. Zio lk o’s rep or t to th e App eal s C ou nc il . Und er qu es ti on in g at

or al arg um en t, th e Co m

m i s s i o n e r refu se d to ad m it th at th e rep or t was pr op erl y

su bm it te d to th e App eal s Co un ci l. The Co m m is si on er do es no t di sp ut e, ho wev er, th at

un de r 20 C.F.R. § 40 4.9 70 (b ), ne w, m at eri al ev id en ce m ay be su bm it te d to th e A pp eal s Co un ci l by facs im il e or th at W hi tn ey ha s su pp li ed a tra ns m is si on sh ee t

su gg es ti ng pr o p e r s ub m is si on of th e rep or t. In st ead
, th e Co m m is si on er arg ue s, be cau se th ere is no ev id en ce of th e r e p o r t i n t h e ad m in is tra ti ve reco rd
, we sh ou ld

- 5

-as su m e th at th e rep or t was no t s u b mi tt ed an d co ns id er W hi tn ey ’s req ue st as be in g

br ou gh t on ly u nd er 42 U.S.C. § 40 5( g)

. A s Whi tn ey pr es en te d hi s arg um en t to th e di st ric t co ur t, it is in th e pr op er po si ti on to m ak e th e fact ua l fin di ng s as to whe th er Dr.
Zio lk o’s re po rt wa s s ub m it te d i n a m an ne r pr ov id ed for un de r th e reg ul at io ns

.

Acco rd in gl y , we rev ers e an d rem an d th i s mat t e r to th e di st ric t co ur t to m ak e

an in it ia l det erm in at io n of whe th er W hi tn ey ti m el y su bm it te d Dr. Zio lk o’s rep or t to th e App eal s Co un ci l as req ui red un de r 20 C.F.R. § 4 04 .97 0( b) . If th e d is tri ct co ur t
fin ds th at th e rep or t was tim el y su bm it te d, it is di rect ed to rem an d th is m at te r to th e App eal s Co un ci l f

o r a de te rm in at io n of whe th er th e ev id en ce is ne w, m at eri al
, an d
rel at es to th e pe rio d on or be fo re th e ALJ’s de ci si on an d, if th es e req ui rem en ts are fo un d to ha ve be en sa ti sf ie d, fo r co ns id erat io n w i t h a l l of th e ot he r ev id en ce in th e ad m in is tra ti ve reco rd . See 2 0 C .F.R. §§ 40 4.9 70 (b ), 40 4.9 76 (b )(1 ).

Rev ers ed an d re m an de d.

RILEY, Chi ef J ud ge , con cu rri ng in pa rt a nd di ss en ti ng in pa rt.

I co nc ur wit h th e m ajor it y th at th is ap pe al sh ou ld be rem an de d to th e di st ric t

co ur t fo r fact ua l fin di ng s reg ard in g whe th er W hi tn ey ti m el y su bm it te d Dr. Zio lk o’s

rep or t. Su ch fin di ng s are es se nt ia l to de te rm in e if W hi tn ey ha s m ad e “ a sh owi ng th at th ere is ne w ev id en ce whi ch is m at eri al an d th at th ere is go od cau se fo r th e fai lu re to
in co rp or at e su ch ev id en ce in to th e reco rd in a pr io r pr oc eed in g” as re qu ire d by 42
U.S.C. § 40 5( g)

. If W hi tn ey ti m el y su bm it te d th e rep or t, as hi s facs im il e rep or t se em s
to su gg es t, an d th e App e al s Co un ci l fai le d to co ns id er it th ro ug h no fau lt of
W hi tn ey ’s, W hi tn ey

arg ua bl y ha s m ad e th e req ui si te sh owi ng of go od cau se fo r th e fai lu re t o i nc or

po rat e th e rep or t i nt o t he ad m in is tra ti ve reco rd

.

Bu t I am un ab le to joi n th e m ajor it y ’s op in io n to th e ex te nt it rel ie s on W il li am s

v. Su ll iv an , 90 5 F.2 d 21 4 (8 th Ci r. 19 90 ) an d it s pr og en y to su gg es t th e fed eral co ur ts

- 6

-h a v e ( 1 ) ju ris di ct io n in de pe nd en t of § 40 5( g) to rev ie w th e App eal s Co un ci l’s

co m pl ia nc e wit h it s own reg ul at io ns in a no nf in al ag en cy act io n, an d (2 ) au th or it y to

or de r rem an d to th e Co m

m is si on er to co ns id er ad di ti on al ev id en ce ab se nt a sh owi ng of go od cau se

. Alt h o ug h it is reas on ab le to co nc lu de a di sa bi li ty cl ai m an t sh ou ld
ha ve so m e reco ur se to th e fed eral co ur ts to en su re th e ag en cy co m pl ie s wit h it s own
reg ul at io ns , ne it he r W hi tn ey no r t h e p a ne l in W il li am s ha s art ic ul at ed a st at ut or y ba si s fo r juri s d i c t i on in th e fed eral co ur ts in de pe nd en t of § 40 5( g)

. I res pe ct fu ll y 2
di ss en t i n t hi s p art of t he m ajor it y op in io n.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

At or al arg um en t, W hi tn ey reas on ab ly su gg es te d juri sd ic ti on fo r su ch rev ie w 2

m ay li e u n d e r t h e Adm in is tra ti ve Pro ced ur e Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 70 1– 06

. Bu t W hi tn e y d i d n o t e v en m en ti on th e APA in th e di st ric t co ur t or in hi s br ie f he re or at te m pt to ex pl ai n whe th er th e de no vo rev ie w th e c ou rt us ed in W il li am s is th e ap pr op ria te st an da rd

.

- 7

-