Opinion ID: 3014456
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Following the Council’s August 1998 order

Text: Money argues that the second ALJ failed to heed the Council’s holding that her right hand impairment precluded her from performing jobs requiring bilateral manual dexerity, and that the district court erred when it failed to remand her claim to the Commissioner so it could comply with the holding or explain why it failed to comply. We disagree. The district court properly found that “the record is clear that the ALJ complied with all of the instructions set forth in the Appeals Council’s remand order and took no action inconsistent with that order. (R. 306-309.)” Order at 12. The Council’s holding stated: The Council believes that the claimant’s right hand difficulties do represent a significant nonexertional limitation. . . . The Council believes that this severe 10 dominant hand impairment which precludes the claimant’s ability to perform jobs requiring bilateral manual dexterity cannot be considered insignificant and that vocational evidence is needed to determine the extent to which the claimant’s nonexertional limitations erode the occupational base for work. Decision at 2. The ALJ gave significance to the hand impairment in his step three analysis, finding that Money had the RFC to perform “a wide range of simple, routine and repetitive light work activity, not involving pushing, pulling or fine manual dexterity with the right dominant upper extremity.” He took vocational evidence regarding Money’s hand impairment: he included this limitation on manual dexterity in the hypothetical to the VE as discussed above. C. Accounting for the additional medical evidence the Council added to the record Money argues that the Council should have explained why it adopted the second ALJ’s opinion even after it added exhibits to the record, and that the district court erred when it failed to remand her claim to the Council for such an explanation. We disagree. First, because she failed to raise this argument before the district court, Money waived her right to raise it before now. See Gass, 311 F.3d at 246. Second, Money appears to think she is entitled to review by the Appeals Council. The regulations do require the Council to evaluate the entire record including the new and material evidence submitted, but do not require it to grant review unless it finds that the ALJ’s decision “is contrary to the weight of the evidence currently of record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.970(b). The Council can admit the evidence into the record but does not have to provide written 11 review of this evidence unless it grants formal review of the ALJ’s decision. See Matthews v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 589, 592 (3d Cir. 2001). We have already decided that the only way that the new evidence could be reviewed in this situation would be on remand to the Commissioner. Such a remand could only take place if it met the criteria listed in Section 405(g) of the Act. Id. at 59293. The district court here properly used these 405(g) factors to analyze whether the new evidence at issue required remand. It found that the petitioner did not offer any reasons why the evidence was material or why the evidence had not been generated in time to put into the record before the ALJ. This conclusion is supported by the record, which is bereft of any such explanations. The district court correctly concluded that it could not remand this claim to the Commissioner for consideration of this evidence because the evidence did not meet the criteria for remand under 405(g).