Opinion ID: 170023
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Simply Better Evidence

Text: Finally, Hall requires that extra-record evidence presented to a district court not be `simply better evidence than the claimant mustered for the claim review.' 300 F.3d at 1203 (quoting Quesinberry, 987 F.2d at 1027). We have not yet explained what this requirement entails. We think it is clear from the context of Hall that new evidence which is of the same kind as evidence in the administrative record, but simply more persuasive, is not admissible. New evidence must be of a significantly different type than existing evidence to meet the standard of Hall. In Hall, we permitted the introduction of extra-record evidence of the plaintiff's two subsequent surgeries because the probative value of the surgeries was far greater than the probative value of the evidence of Hall's pain in the administrative record, and so the surgeries were of obvious importance . . . to the question of whether she was disabled. 300 F.3d at 1207. The issue of Ms. Hall's disability turned on the extent of her pain, a subjective matter which is not susceptible of objective measurement, and the only information in the administrative record from which answers could be gleaned were the statements of Ms. Hall and her doctors, plus the fact of Ms. Hall's heavy use of pain medication. See Hall v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., No. 97-CV-1828, 1999 WL 33485551, at - (D.Colo. Nov.1, 1999). And on this subjective question, Ms. Hall's credibility was at issue, as her demeanor and manner while giving her testimony suggest[ed] that she was exaggerating her difficulty. Id. at . Against this background, then, her choice to undergo pain-relieving surgeries that removed muscle tissue and her first rib, id. at , constituted verifiable and hard-to-manipulate corroborating evidence of a kind to be found nowhere else in the record. As the district court noted, [i]t is highly unlikely that any person would undergo those procedures unless the pain she experienced was real and unrelenting. Id. The surgeries were more than merely better or more convincing versions of Ms. Hall's testimony and the conclusions of her doctors. The letters at issue in this case do not meet this standard. Above, we observed that Dr. Peters' assertion of the insignificance of the EEG in diagnosing complex partial seizure disorder appears to repudiate some of his earlier statements and actions. It might, if true, be stronger or clearer evidence than Mr. Jewell had previously mustered of what method should be used to diagnose his problems. It is certainly more emphatic. To this extent, however, it is simply better evidenceevidence perhaps more favorable or more persuasive but certainly not different in kindthan what was in the administrative record. The record already contained Dr. Peters' contemporaneous views, and extra-record evidence cannot be used to edit or redo the record. Hall forbids precisely this sort of second bite at the apple. Similarly, although Dr. Peters' letter states more emphatically than did his previous notes that he believes Mr. Jewell's disorder to be organic in nature, this again cannot not meet the Hall standard. As to Dr. Caster's letter, the reference to a 2004 seizure and to Mr. Jewell's seizure medication are not enough to make the letter admissible. There was already evidence in the record of the possibility that Mr. Jewell had had seizures. Dr. Peters reported as early as November 9, 1999 that Mr. Jewell has no history of generalized seizures, but that I am quite concerned that this man has complex partial seizures. App. 323, 325. His physician Dr. Lisa Dunham had recorded on November 6 and November 14, 2002, that Mr. Jewell reports recently having seizure type activity and that he had had episodes suspicious for seizure disorder. App. 180, 182. Dr. Peters wrote on November 11, 2002, that Mr. Jewell reports having episodes where he has found himself where he hadn't known he had been (once in the basement) and thinks that he must have had a seizure. App. 293. Another doctor, Patricia Fodor, wrote in a December 3, 2002 clinic note that Mr. Jewell had a history of seizures. App. 321. Dr. Caster recorded on April 18, 2003 that [i]t is apparent that [Mr. Jewell] had a seizure about a month ago. App. 254. There was in the record, as well, some contradictory evidence: most or all of these seizures appear to have occurred after a May 12, 2002 motorcycle accident which left Mr. Jewell unconscious, with, as Dr. Caster put it, fairly significant physical injuries with evidences [sic] of a head injury. App. 252. Even assuming that the 2004 seizure and use of seizure medication reported in Dr. Caster's disputed letter is evidence that Mr. Jewell's disability, which manifested itself in 1998, was organic in nature, the letter would be simply better evidence of conditions already documented in the record. Finally, Dr. Caster's statements that Mr. Jewell's finances had improved but that his disability continued, to the extent they are relevant, cast no light on the medical provenance of his condition.