Opinion ID: 3173474
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: James White

Text: Miller argues that the district court “utilized the internet to establish additional evidence” regarding James White’s credentials as an M.D., Ph.D., and/or N.P. The magistrate judge recommended that the matter be remanded for clarification as to the identity of James White and for reassessment of White’s opinion based on that clarification. The district court declined to adopt the magistrate judge’s recommendation concerning the identity of James White, and instead found that “[a] simple check of licensed health professionals on the State of Michigan, Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs website,” identified that James White, Jr. held a nurse practitioner license and an expired and surrendered limited psychology license. When a court undertakes review of agency action, “consideration of evidence outside the administrative record is proper under some circumstances, e.g., ‘for background information . . . or for the limited purposes of ascertaining whether the agency considered all the relevant factors or fully explicated its course of conduct or grounds of decision.’” Norwich Eaton Pharms., Inc. v. Bowen, 808 F.2d 486, 489 (6th Cir. 1987) (alteration in original) (quoting Asarco, Inc. v. EPA, 616 F.2d 1153, 1160 (9th Cir. 1980)). However, we have cautioned that the reviewing court ‘must be careful not to allow such evidence to change the character of the hearing from one of review to a trial de novo.’” United States v. Akzo Coatings of Am., Inc., 949 F.2d 1409, 1428 (6th Cir. 1991) (quoting Town of Burlington v. Dep’t of Educ., 736 F.2d 773, 791 (1st Cir. 1984)). The determination of James White’s credentials extends beyond the examples cited in Norwich. Further, in Norwich, the court did not use any evidence from beyond the administrative record in reaching its decision. See Norwich, 808 F.2d at 489. The same cannot be said here, where the information that the district court introduced about James White formed the basis for the court’s conclusion that James White was not a treating medical source and the ALJ appropriately assigned his opinion limited weight. We therefore decline to accept the district court’s decision to introduce evidence outside of the administrative record and base its No. 15-1405 Miller v. Comm’r of Social Security Page 18 conclusion upon this evidence.10 We share the magistrate judge’s conclusion, and, on remand, the ALJ should (1) ask the parties to submit evidence that would permit the ALJ to clarify the identity or identities of James White, and (2) reassess James White’s opinion(s) in accordance with that determination.