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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. .. [15-1519]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTOPHER D. PARHAM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
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
November 30, 2015
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Reversed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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
Pennsylvania; Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, Jonathan
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Christopher D. Parham appeals the district court’s order
benefits and supplemental security income.
For the reasons that
follow, we reverse and remand.
questionnaire completed by Dr. DePalma, one of Parham’s treating
disability determination of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)
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
consider that evidence when deciding whether to grant review
over an ALJ decision.
Wilkins v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Health & Human
§§ 404.970(b), 416.1470(b) (2015).
“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
Meyer v. Astrue, 662 F.3d 700, 705 (4th Cir.
2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In evaluating whether
Pg: 3 of 3
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.
that should have prompted a remand to the ALJ for full and
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment
of the district court and remand with instructions to reverse
rehearing pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2012).
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
argument would not aid the decisional process.
REVERSED AND REMANDED
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?