Christopher Parham v. Commissioner Social Security


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-1519 Doc: 24 Filed: 12/28/2015 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1519 CHRISTOPHER D. PARHAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant -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 Reversed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?