Poole v. Social Security Administration

Filing 24

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 22 . Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 9/11/2017.(tm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHIRLEY JEAN POOLE

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 16-16393

SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION

SECTION “R” (2)

ORDER AND REASONS
The Court, having reviewed de novo the complaint, 1 plaintiff’s motion
for leave to submit additional evidence,2 plaintiff’s memorandum of facts
and law, 3 defendant’s reply memorandum, 4 the record, the applicable law,
the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, 5 and plaintiff’s
objections,6 hereby

approves

the Magistrate

Judge’s Report and

Recommendation and adopts it as its opinion.
Plaintiff objects only to the portion of the Report and Recommendation
denying her motion for leave to submit additional medical records.7 The
Magistrate Judge denied plaintiff’s motion because he concluded that

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

R. Doc. 1.
R. Doc. 11.
R. Doc. 20.
R. Doc. 21.
R. Doc. 22.
R. Doc. 23.
Id. at 11-19.

plaintiff failed to satisfy any of the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g),8 which
permits a remand to the Commissioner of Social Security for additional
evidence to be taken “only upon a showing that there is new evidence which
is material and that there is good cause for the failure to incorporate such
evidence into the record in a prior proceeding.”
Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in finding that her
medical records are not new simply because they predate the administrative
hearing.9

But, contrary to plaintiff’s contentions, the Report and

Recommendation does not rely on the date of the records as “the sole
determining factor” of whether they are new. 10 The Magistrate Judge also
correctly concluded that plaintiff’s proposed evidence is not new because it
is merely cumulative of evidence already in the record. 11 See Pierre v.
Sullivan, 884 F.2d 799, 803 (5th Cir. 1989). The Magistrate Judge further
held that the evidence is not material because plaintiff failed to demonstrate
a reasonable possibility that the records would have affected the
Commissioner’s decision.12

8
9
10
11
12

R. Doc. 22 at 11.
R. Doc. 23 at 1.
Id. at 1; R. Doc. 22 at 12, 14.
R. Doc. 22 at 14.
Id. at 16-18.
2

Because plaintiff’s proposed new evidence is neither new nor material,
it is unnecessary to determine whether plaintiff had good cause for failing to
incorporate this evidence into the administrative record. The Magistrate
Judge nevertheless properly found that plaintiff failed to provide a
satisfactory explanation for why the medical records were not submitted
earlier.13
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.

11th
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of September, 2017.

_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

R. Doc. 22 at 15. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to submit additional
evidence simply states that the records “were unavailable at [] the time of
the hearing” without providing further explanation. See R. Doc. 11-1 at 1.
3
13