Opinion ID: 3173474
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Post-September 2011 Treatment Records

Text: Miller seeks consideration of treatment notes and records completed after the ALJ’s September 2011 decision. However, “evidence submitted to the Appeals Council after the ALJ’s decision cannot be considered part of the record for purposes of substantial evidence review.” Foster v. Halter, 279 F.3d 348, 357 (6th Cir. 2001). Miller argues that the district court should have considered the post-September 2011 treatment notes because the district court was willing to introduce its own sources from outside the record to evaluate the separate question of whether James White was an acceptable medical source. This tit-for-tat line of reasoning is unavailing. The district court simply was not in the position to consider new evidence in “deciding whether to uphold, modify, or reverse the ALJ’s decision.” Cline v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 96 F.3d 146, 148 (6th Cir. 1996). However, consideration of new evidence may be appropriate on remand if the claimant can show that the new evidence “is material and that there is good cause for the failure to incorporate such evidence into the record in a prior proceeding.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); see also Foster, 279 F.3d at 357 (stating that the claimant bears the burden of showing that remand is appropriate). Miller argues that the evidence was not available at the time of the original hearing, but he fails to establish materiality. New evidence is material “only if there is ‘a reasonable probability that the Secretary would have reached a different disposition of the disability claim if presented with the new evidence.’” Foster, 279 F.3d at 357 (quoting Sizemore v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 865 F.2d 709, 711 (6th Cir. 1988)). Miller’s only statement to this effect is that “[t]he material subsequent to the ALJ’s decision merely confirmed the invalidity of the ALJ’s decision.” Without more, this statement does not establish that the new evidence was sufficiently material to require remand, and we therefore agree with the district court’s conclusion that Miller failed to demonstrate that remand was appropriate on that basis. credentials as “MSW,” and he furnishes no support for the proposition that Jordan meets the definition of a “licensed or certified psychologist.” See SSR 06-03, 2006 WL 2329939, at  (Aug. 9, 2006). According to Social Security Ruling 06-03p, even a licensed clinical social worker is “not an ‘acceptable medical source,’” and this designation may “justify” giving an opinion of an acceptable medical source greater weight. Id. at , . Thus, SSR 06-03p does not support Miller’s conclusion that Karen Jordan is an acceptable medical source whose opinion is owed deferential weight. No. 15-1405 Miller v. Comm’r of Social Security Page 17