McGee v. Astrue

Filing 33

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas requiring further briefing on cross-motions for summary judgment. (njvlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/6/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 NOT FOR CITATION 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 EUREKA DIVISION 8 9 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 11 12 13 ORDER REQUIRING FURTHER BRIEFING Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. 14 15 No. CV 10-4938 NJV SUZANNE McGEE, / This matter is pending before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment. After 16 reviewing the parties' papers, the Court finds that further briefing is needed for the Court to conduct 17 a complete and thorough review. 18 Plaintiff contends that a fully favorable decision of her disability in a subsequent and 19 separate application constitutes new material evidence which requires reversal of the April 7, 2008, 20 decision, or in the alternative, asks this Court to remand her case for reconsideration in light of new 21 evidence. (Doc. No. 29 at 2.) Under the Social Security Act, “the court . . . may at any time order 22 additional evidence to be taken before the Secretary, but only upon a showing that there is new 23 evidence which is material and that there is good cause for the failure to incorporate such evidence 24 into the record in a prior proceeding.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). New evidence is material if it ‘bears 25 directly and substantially on the matter in dispute,’ and if there is a ‘reasonable possibility that the 26 new evidence would have changed the outcome of the . . . determination.’” Bruton v. Massanari, 27 268 F.3d 824, 827 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Booz v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 734 F.2d 1378, 28 1380 (9th Cir. 1984) (internal quotation and citations omitted)). "To demonstrate good cause, the claimant must demonstrate that the new evidence was unavailable earlier.” Mayes v. Massanari, 1 276 F.3d 453, 463 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Key v. Heckler, 754 F.2d 1545, 1551 (9th Cir. 1985)). The 2 good cause requirement is satisfied “[i]f new information surfaces after the Secretary’s final decision 3 and the claimant could not have obtained that evidence at the time of the administrative proceeding.” 4 Id. 5 The Court finds that the parties have not adequately addressed the issue of good cause under presented in support of the second application which was not presented in support of the initial 8 application. This medical evidence includes a consultative psychological examination performed by 9 Richard Palmer, Ph.D, who found psychological work limitations, and the testimony of Dr. Bello, 10 who opined that Plaintiff met the listing for inflammatory arthritis “since the amended onset date 11 For the Northern District of California 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Defendant argues, and Plaintiff does not dispute, that medical evidence was 7 United States District Court 6 [May 9, 2008].” Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit 1, p. 6-7. The parties, however, 12 provide no discussion as to whether the good cause standard has been met for the failure to 13 incorporate this evidence into the first proceeding. 14 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1) The parties shall simultaneously brief the issue of good cause under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to 16 support remand of Plaintiff's case for reconsideration in light of new evidence. The parties 17 shall discuss the application of Luna v. Astrue, 623 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2010) and Bruton v. 18 Massanari, 268 F.3d 824, 827 (9th Cir. 2001) to the issue of good cause in this case. 19 20 2) The parties' briefs shall not exceed five pages in length and shall be filed no later than 5:00 p.m. on December 20, 2011. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 25 Dated: December 5, 2011 ____________________________ 26 NANDOR J. VADAS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28 2

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?