Opinion ID: 20701
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Appeals Council's Failure to Address Newton's Arguments and Evidence

Text: 70 Newton requested review from the Appeals Council based on new medical evidence. When the Appeals Council rejected her appeal, the Council issued a standard form denial. 71 The Hearings, Appeals and Litigation Law Manual (HALLEX) Section I-3-501 (Nov. 11, 1994), provides that the Appeals Council must specifically address additional evidence or legal arguments or contentions submitted in connection with the request for review. The Council did not specifically address Newton's new medical evidence, thus violating its own internal procedures. 72 While HALLEX does not carry the authority of law, this court has held that where the rights of individuals are affected, an agency must follow its own procedures, even where the internal procedures are more rigorous than otherwise would be required. See Hall v. Schweiker, 660 F.2d 116, 119 (5th Cir. 1981). If prejudice results from a violation, the result cannot stand. Id. 73 In this case, however, Newton was not prejudiced by the violation of HALLEX because her new medical evidence consisted of opinions regarding her condition in1995 and 1996 which are not relevant to Newton's ability to work during the claimed disability period between 1989 and 1994. Because the new evidence was not relevant, the Appeals Council's failure to address the evidence with greater specificity did not cause Newton's need to seek relief from the federal courts.