Court Opinion

ID: 9378816
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-13 18:00:45.171737+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:07.247980
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-10652    Document: 35-1     Date Filed: 03/13/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-10652
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       KENO GRIMMETT,
                                                     Plaintiff-Appellant,
       versus
       SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
       COMMISSIONER,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Alabama
                    D.C. Docket No. 4:20-cv-01010-RDP
USCA11 Case: 22-10652     Document: 35-1      Date Filed: 03/13/2023    Page: 2 of 4

       2                      Opinion of the Court                22-10652

                            ____________________

       Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and NEWSOM and GRANT, Cir-
       cuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
             Keno Grimmett appeals the denial of his motion for relief
       from a judgment affirming the Commissioner’s denial of his appli-
       cation for supplemental security income, 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g),
       1383(c)(3), and for a remand to the agency to consider new evi-
       dence, id. § 405(g). We affirm.
              In June 2018, Grimmett applied for supplemental security
       income and alleged a disability onset date of June 19, 2018. Grim-
       mett submitted various medical evidence, including statements
       from Dr. James McCain and Kristy Phillips. In February 2020, an
       administrative law judge denied his claim. Grimmett asked the Ap-
       peals Council to consider five additional medical records as new
       evidence. The Appeals Council denied Grimmett’s request and
       concluded that the new evidence would not have changed the ad-
       ministrative law judge’s decision. In August 2021, the district court
       affirmed the Commissioner’s decision. Grimmett did not appeal.
             Four months later, Grimmett moved for relief from the
       judgment, Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2), (6), and for a “sentence six” re-
       mand, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), because he had received a subsequent fa-
       vorable decision finding him disabled with an onset date of Sep-
       tember 23, 2020. Grimmett argued that the favorable decision was
       new and material evidence. Grimmett also argued that, in contrast
USCA11 Case: 22-10652      Document: 35-1     Date Filed: 03/13/2023     Page: 3 of 4

       22-10652               Opinion of the Court                         3

       with Hunter v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm’r, 808 F.3d 818 (11th Cir.
       2015), where we held that a subsequent favorable decision alone
       was not evidence that could support a “sentence six” remand, he
       had submitted new medical evidence to the Appeals Council that
       supported the favorable decision.
               The district court denied Grimmett’s motion and ruled that
       Hunter foreclosed his argument. The district court also ruled that
       the additional medical evidence was unpersuasive because the new
       decision concerned a different period from the one addressed in the
       first decision.
              Under sentence six of section 405(g), the district court may
       “remand to the Commissioner to consider new evidence presented
       for the first time in the district court.” Ingram v. Comm’r of Soc.
       Sec. Admin., 496 F.3d 1253, 1267 (11th Cir. 2007). To obtain a re-
       mand, the claimant must prove that the evidence is new and mate-
       rial and that good cause exists for failing to incorporate the evi-
       dence into the record in the earlier proceeding. Id. at 1261. For pur-
       poses of section 405(g), a subsequent favorable benefits decision is
       not “evidence.” Hunter, 808 F.3d at 822 (“A decision is not evi-
       dence any more than evidence is a decision.”). If evidence is sub-
       mitted to the Appeals Council and the Appeals Council considers
       and incorporates it into the record, the evidence is not “new.” In-
       gram, 496 F.3d at 1269.
             Grimmett’s subsequent favorable decision was not “evi-
       dence.” See Hunter, 808 F.3d at 822. Grimmett disagrees with our
       precedent in Hunter, but “[u]nder the prior precedent rule, we are
USCA11 Case: 22-10652      Document: 35-1     Date Filed: 03/13/2023     Page: 4 of 4

       4                      Opinion of the Court                 22-10652

       bound to follow a prior binding precedent unless and until it is
       overruled by this court en banc or by the Supreme Court,” United
       States v. Martinez, 606 F.3d 1303, 1305 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting
       United States v. Vega-Castillo, 540 F.3d 1235, 1236 (11th Cir. 2008)).
       Grimmett seeks to distinguish his case from Hunter by pointing to
       the five additional treatment records that he presented to the Ap-
       peals Council that supported the Commissioner’s subsequent fa-
       vorable decision. But this additional medical evidence was not
       “new” because the Appeals Council reviewed these treatment rec-
       ords and determined that they would not change the administra-
       tive law judge’s decision, which concerned a different period from
       that covered in the subsequent decision. See Ingram, 496 F.3d at
       1269.
              Grimmett also challenges the weight that the administrative
       law judge gave to Dr. McCain’s and Phillips’s reports. But because
       Grimmett did not timely appeal the order of the district court af-
       firming the denial of his application for benefits, we dismissed that
       portion of his appeal and lack jurisdiction over this challenge. See
       Am. Bankers Ins. Co. v. Nw. Nat’l Ins. Co., 198 F.3d 1332, 1338
       (11th Cir. 1999).
              We AFFIRM the denial of Grimmett’s motion for relief from
       the judgment and for remand.