James v. Astrue

Filing 17

ORDER that the Commissioner's cross motion for remand of this matter to the SSA 16 pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), is granted. Plaintiff's pending motion for summary judgment 12 is denied without prejudice. Signed by Hon. David G. Larimer on 9/15/11. (EMA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_______________________________________________
EILEEN JAMES,
Plaintiff,
DECISION AND ORDER
10-CV-6429L
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Administration of the United States,
Defendant.
________________________________________________
Eileen James (“plaintiff”) brings this action under Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act,
42 U.S.C. § 405(g), challenging the final determination of the Commissioner of Social Security (the
“Commissioner”) denying her application for supplemental security income and disability insurance
benefits. Plaintiff has moved for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 56 (Dkt. #12),
and the Commissioner has cross moved to remand these proceedings to consider new and material
evidence, pursuant to Sentence 6 of Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. 405(g)
(Dkt. #16). For the reasons set forth below, the Commissioner’s cross motion is granted, plaintiff’s
motion is denied without prejudice, the decision of the Commissioner is vacated, and the case is
remanded for further administrative proceedings.
Following the Appeals Council’s denial of plaintiff’s request for review on June 4, 2010, the
plaintiff sought to add “new evidence” to the record -- specifically, a favorable ALJ decision
rendered on February 15, 2001 (the “favorable decision”), which concluded that plaintiff had become
disabled on or before June 18, 2009, the date of the initial ALJ determination in this case. The
Commissioner contends that the exhibits which supported the favorable decision may constitute
sufficient new evidence to justify further consideration of the instant case.

In order to remand a disability claim for further administrative procedures, a court must find
“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.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Remand is
an appropriate remedy in two situations: (1) where the Commissioner requests a remand before
answering the complaint; or (2) where new, material evidence is adduced that was not produced
before the agency. See Raitport v. Callahan, 183 F.3d 101, 104 (2d Cir. 1999).
Here, the Commissioner’s remand request is apparently based upon the inconsistency
between the Social Security Administration’s (“SSA”) initial unfavorable determination, and the
favorable one that followed. The Commissioner argues that the evidence adduced in support of
plaintiff’s more recent, successful application likely includes the results of objective tests and other
medical records which may be material to and supportive of plaintiff’s prior application, and may
have been omitted from (or unavailable at the time of) the earlier application.
I concur. The SSA has reached opposing conclusions based on largely similar facts. It is
necessary for the SSA to reconcile those decisions to the extent they are contradictory, examine any
new evidence adduced in the later action, and determine what bearing, if any, that evidence has on
the decision appealed from herein and/or the onset date of plaintiff’s disability.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Commissioner’s cross motion for remand of this matter to the
SSA (Dkt. #16) pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), is granted. Plaintiff’s pending
motion for summary judgment (Dkt. #12) is denied without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

_______________________________________
DAVID G. LARIMER
United States District Judge
Dated: Rochester, New York
September 15, 2011.
-2-