Becknell-Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 17

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
OCALA DIVISION
ELLEN BECKNELL-JONES,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 5:13-cv-218-Oc-18PRL

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY
Defendant.

ORDER
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.
I.

BACKGROUND

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.
III.

DISCUSSION

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

-2-

change the administ
t
trative result and (3) th
t;
here was go cause f the failu to submi the
ood
for
ure
it
evidence at the admin
nistrative lev Caulder 791 F.2d a 877.
vel.
r,
at
Here, Defend
H
dant contend that Plai
ds
intiff has no met her burden of s
ot
showing tha the
at
e
evidence she has sub
bmitted is new, material or that she had good cause for no submittin the
l,
ot
ng
evidence at the admin
nistrative lev Defend further c
vel.
dant
contends tha Plaintiff ha not shown that
at
as
n
the addit
tional eviden would have changed the admin
nce
h
nistrative res
sult, nor has she offered any
s
d
explanati of good cause for her failure to submit such records at th administra
ion
c
s
he
ative level.
The Court ag
T
grees. The documents Plaintiff has attached to the complai consist o her
d
P
int
of
own handwritten des
scriptions of her sympto
f
oms, as wel as an und
ll
dated letter f
from the Orl
lando
Pain Clin (Doc. 1, 9), and an undated diagnostic i
nic
1
a
image (Doc 1, 10).
c.

Plaintiff has not

demonstr
rated that th evidence is new and noncumul
his
e
d
lative, or th it is mat
hat
terial such t
that a
reasonable probabilit exists tha it would change the a
ty
at
c
administrativ result. Likewise, Pla
ve
aintiff
provides no good ca
ause for her failure to su
ubmit the ev
vidence at th administr
he
rative level. See
a
erry v. Heck
kler, 760 F. 1186, 1192 (11th C 1985). The
.2d
Cir.
Caulder, 791 F.2d at 877; Che
exhibits to Plaintiff’s Complaint are due to be stricken.
t
s
IV CONCLU
V.
USION
Accordingly, upon due consideration the Comm
A
c
n,
missioner’s Motions to Strike (Doc 11
cs.
and 16) are GRAN
NTED, and the exhibits attached to Plainti
d
d
iff’s Compl
laint are he
ereby
STRICK
KEN. Plaintif Motion to Suppleme (Doc. 15 ) is DENIED
ff’s
ent
D.
DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Flo
D
O
orida on Oct
tober 8, 2013.

-3-

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

-4-