Christopher Parham v. Commissioner Social Security
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:14-cv-00283-DJN Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999725149].. [15-1519]
Appeal: 15-1519
Doc: 24
Filed: 12/28/2015
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1519
CHRISTOPHER D. PARHAM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
David J. Novak, Magistrate
Judge. (3:14-cv-00283-DJN)
Submitted:
November 30, 2015
Decided:
December 28, 2015
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reversed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas Bryan Byrne, North Chesterfield, Virginia, for Appellant.
Nora Koch, Acting Regional Chief Counsel, Charles Kawas, Acting
Supervisory Attorney, David E. Somers, III, Assistant Regional
Counsel,
SOCIAL
SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania; Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, Jonathan
H.
Hambrick,
Assistant United
States
Attorney,
Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-1519
Doc: 24
Filed: 12/28/2015
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Christopher D. Parham appeals the district court’s order
affirming
the
Commissioner’s
denial
of
disability
benefits and supplemental security income.
insurance
For the reasons that
follow, we reverse and remand.
On
appeal,
Parham
asserts
that
a
January
30,
2013
questionnaire completed by Dr. DePalma, one of Parham’s treating
physicians,
was
new
and
material
evidence
that
rendered
the
disability determination of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)
unsupported
by
asserts
that
Appeals
Council
substantial
the
evidence.
questionnaire,
and
made
part
which
of
the
Effectively,
was
submitted
administrative
Parham
to
the
record,
obligated a remand to the ALJ.
When a claimant submits to the Appeals Council “new and
material evidence relating to the period on or before the date
of
the
ALJ
decision,”
the
Appeals
Council
is
required
to
consider that evidence when deciding whether to grant review
over an ALJ decision.
Servs.,
953
F.2d
93,
Wilkins v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Health & Human
95
(4th
§§ 404.970(b), 416.1470(b) (2015).
Cir.
1991);
see
20
C.F.R.
“Evidence is new if it is
not duplicative or cumulative and is material if there is a
reasonable possibility that the new evidence would have changed
the outcome.”
Meyer v. Astrue, 662 F.3d 700, 705 (4th Cir.
2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).
2
In evaluating whether
Appeal: 15-1519
remand
whole,
Doc: 24
is
Filed: 12/28/2015
necessary,
including
substantial
we
the
evidence
view
new
Pg: 3 of 3
the
administrative
evidence,
supports
the
to
record
determine
Commissioner’s
as
a
whether
decision.
Wilkins, 953 F.2d at 96; see Meyer v. Colvin, 754 F.3d 251, 257
(4th Cir. 2014) (considering whether new evidence “impugn[s] the
integrity” of ALJ’s decision).
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Dr.
DePalma’s
questionnaire
constitutes
new
and
material
evidence
that should have prompted a remand to the ALJ for full and
appropriate consideration.
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment
of the district court and remand with instructions to reverse
the
decision
of
the
Commissioner
and
remand
the
rehearing pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2012).
case
for
a
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.
REVERSED AND REMANDED
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?