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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Reversed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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