Becknell-Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security
ORDER granting the Commissioner's Motions to Strike (Docs. 11 and 16), and denying Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement (Doc. 15). The exhibits attached to Plaintiff's Complaint are hereby stricken. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens on 10/8/2013. (JWM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No: 5:13-cv-218-Oc-18PRL
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
This Social Security appeal comes before the Court for consideration of three pending
motions, including Defendant’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 11), the pro se Plaintiff’s Motion to
supplement (Doc. 15), and a second Motion to Strike (Doc. 16) filed by the Defendant.
On May 8, 2013, Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint in this Court “to appeal the Appeal
Board’s Decision.” (Doc. 1). Plaintiff seeks to appeal an administrative decision denying her
applications for Disability Insurance Benefits (ADIB@) and Supplemental Security Income
Benefits (“SSI”). As attachments to her Complaint, Plaintiff filed a handwritten list of “current
conditions,” a letter signed by Plaintiff describing her pain and symptoms, a letter regarding her
condition signed by Rama Karumaci from the Orlando Pain Clinic, and a diagnostic image.
(Doc. 1, pages 4-9).
Defendant filed a Motion to Strike (Doc. 11), arguing that Plaintiff’s exhibits to her
Complaint must be stricken. In that motion, Defendant argues that this Court cannot consider
extra-record evidence in its substantial evidence review of the Commissioner’s final decision. In
Response, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Supplement New Medical Records (Doc. 15). In that
document, Plaintiff explains that she does not “understand a lot of the legal paper that was sent.”
She explains that she was in a car accident in May, and had neurological testing that revealed
new medical findings about her condition. (Doc. 15, 2-3). She contends that new medical
records are available from various sources, including a neurologist, hospital, and pain
management clinic. (Doc. 15, 5).
In response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement, Defendant has filed a second Motion to
Strike (Doc. 16).
Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s supplements are not appropriate in
proceedings under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Defendant also argues that Plaintiff’s motion should not
be treated as a motion to remand under sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) because she has not
made the necessary showing for a remand.
Section 405(g) expressly limits the Court’s jurisdiction to a review of the pleadings and
the certified transcript of the administrative record. The section precludes consideration of extrarecord evidence. Neither party may put any additional evidence before the district court, and the
court is limited to a review of the record made at the administrative level. Caulder v. Bowen,
701 F.2d 872, 876 (11th Cir. 1986).
Although the record cannot be enlarged, the Court may treat Plaintiff’s submission of
additional evidence as a motion to remand under sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Evidence
submitted to the court may be considered only to determine if remand is warranted under
sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See Caulder, 791 F.2d at 876. To satisfy the criteria for a
remand under sentence six, a claimant must establish that (1) the evidence is new and
noncumulative; (2) the evidence is material such that a reasonable probability exists that it would
change the administ
trative result and (3) th
here was go cause f the failu to submi the
evidence at the admin
nistrative lev Caulder 791 F.2d a 877.
dant contend that Plai
intiff has no met her burden of s
showing tha the
evidence she has sub
bmitted is new, material or that she had good cause for no submittin the
evidence at the admin
nistrative lev Defend further c
contends tha Plaintiff ha not shown that
tional eviden would have changed the admin
sult, nor has she offered any
explanati of good cause for her failure to submit such records at th administra
The Court ag
grees. The documents Plaintiff has attached to the complai consist o her
own handwritten des
scriptions of her sympto
oms, as wel as an und
dated letter f
from the Orl
Pain Clin (Doc. 1, 9), and an undated diagnostic i
image (Doc 1, 10).
Plaintiff has not
rated that th evidence is new and noncumul
lative, or th it is mat
terial such t
reasonable probabilit exists tha it would change the a
administrativ result. Likewise, Pla
provides no good ca
ause for her failure to su
ubmit the ev
vidence at th administr
rative level. See
erry v. Heck
kler, 760 F. 1186, 1192 (11th C 1985). The
Caulder, 791 F.2d at 877; Che
exhibits to Plaintiff’s Complaint are due to be stricken.
Accordingly, upon due consideration the Comm
missioner’s Motions to Strike (Doc 11
and 16) are GRAN
NTED, and the exhibits attached to Plainti
laint are he
KEN. Plaintif Motion to Suppleme (Doc. 15 ) is DENIED
DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Flo
orida on Oct
tober 8, 2013.
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
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?