Court Opinion

ID: 9480009
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:35:22.534042+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:25.698633
License: Public Domain

MERRITT, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
I believe that the AU’s July 27, 1989 decision which found that plaintiff was under a disability should have been considered by this Court. I disagree with the Court’s holding that the new evidence plaintiff wanted to submit is not material to the Secretary’s 1985 decision. One of plaintiff’s arguments is that her musculo-skeletal impairment should relate back to the date when her insured status expired. Because this new decision may have a bearing on that issue, I believe this Court should have taken judicial notice of the decision and considered it because it reveals “further information about the claimant’s ability to perform light or sedentary work” on the earlier date. See Oliver v. Secretary, 804 F.2d 964, 966 (6th Cir.1986). If the Court is unwilling to consider the new decision, it should remand the case for that purpose.