Kimberly Baker v. Social Security Commissioner

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cv-00040-JPJ-PMS Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999101810].. [12-1709]

Appeal: 12-1709

Doc: 41

Filed: 05/06/2013

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1709

KIMBERLY RENE BAKER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon.
James P. Jones, District
Judge. (1:11-cv-00040-JPJ-PMS)

Submitted:

April 30, 2013

Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.

SHEDD,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

May 6, 2013

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wolodymyr Cybriwsky, Prestonsburg, Kentucky, for Appellant.
Eric
P.
Kressman,
Regional
Chief
Counsel,
Victor
Pane,
Supervisory Attorney, M. Jared Littman, Special Assistant United
States Attorney, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania; Timothy J. Heaphy, United States Attorney, Rick
Mountcastle,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Roanoke,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-1709

Doc: 41

Filed: 05/06/2013

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Kimberly
orders:

granting

upholding

the

Rene

Baker

summary

decision

of

appeals

judgment
the

to

the

district

the

Commissioner

Commissioner

denying

court’s
and

Baker’s

application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental
security income; and denying her motion for reconsideration.
have

reviewed

the

record

and

find

no

reversible

We

error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court.

Baker v. Social Sec. Comm’r, No. 1:11-cv-00040-JPJ-PMS

(W.D. Va. Feb. 16, 2012; Apr. 2, 2012). *

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

*

We reject Baker’s claim that she is entitled to a sentence
six remand on the basis of a subsequent administrative decision
awarding benefits.
See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2006).
The
subsequent decision pertains to an application for benefits
filed by Baker after the date of the unfavorable decision that
is the subject of this appeal.
“[A] subsequent favorable
decision itself, as opposed to the evidence supporting the
subsequent decision, does not constitute new and material
evidence under § 405(g).” Allen v. Commissioner, 561 F.3d 646,
653 (6th Cir. 2009).
Baker has not met her burden of showing
that evidence relied upon in reaching the favorable decision
pertains to the period under consideration in this appeal.
We
conclude that the evidence is not material to the earlier,
unfavorable decision.

2