Graley v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 24

Opinion and Order denying plaintiff's 22 motion to alter or amend judgment. (Related Doc # 20 ). Judge James S. Gwin on 8/13/15.(S,HR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
------------------------------------------------------:
THOMAS A. GRALEY,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
:
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL :
SECURITY,
:
:
Defendant.
:
:
-------------------------------------------------------

CASE NO. 1:14-CV-00728

OPINION & ORDER
[Resolving Docs. 20]

JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Plaintiff Thomas Graley moves the Court to alter or amend its June 26, 2015, opinion and
order1/ in which the Court denied Graley’s application for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and
Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”).2/ Graley says the Court incorrectly concluded that his
Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) disability rating was not new and material evidence that
justified a remand to the Social Security Administration (“SSA”). For the following reasons, the
Court adheres to its ruling and DENIES Graley’s motion to alter or amend.
I. Background3/
On February 21, 2013, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied Graley’s DIB and SSI
applications. On August 12, 2013, six months after the ALJ issued her decision, the VA determined
1/

Doc. 20.
Doc. 22.
3/
The underlying facts are laid out in greater detail in the Court’s June 26, 2015, order, and in Magistrate Judge
Limbert’s Report and Recommendation. See Doc. 20; Doc. 17.
2/

-1-

Case No. 1:14-cv-00728
Gwin, J.
that Plaintiff had a 100% disability rating with an onset date of February 29, 2012.4/
Graley asked the SSA Appeals Council to review the ALJ’s decision. As part of his request
for review, Graley included a letter documenting his new VA disability rating. On February 11, 2014,
the Appeals Council nonetheless denied Graley’s request for review.
II. Analysis
The crux of Graley’s argument is that an unpublished Sixth Circuit opinion
Commissioner of Social Security5/

LaRiccia v.

requires the Court to amend its earlier opinion. But this

argument misses a crucial distinction between LaRiccia and Graley’s case.
In LaRiccia, the applicant had a 100% VA disability rating before he applied for SSA
benefits. The Sixth Circuit reversed the Commissioner’s decision because the ALJ failed to
adequately consider the rating in rendering his decision.6/ SSA regulations require an ALJ to explain
the consideration given to disability determinations from other agencies.
In Graley’s case, the ALJ did not have Graley’s updated VA disability rating when she
rendered her decision. The updated rating was later submitted to the Appeals Council, but “evidence
submitted to the Appeals Council after the ALJ’s decision cannot be considered part of the record
for purposes of substantial evidence review.”7/
Indeed, “where the Appeals Council considers new evidence but declines to review a
claimant’s application for [] benefits on the merits, the district court cannot consider that new

4/

Id. at 744.
549 Fed App’x 377 (6th Cir. 2013).
6/
LaRiccia, 549 Fed App’x at 388.
7/
Foster v. Halter, 279 F.3d 348, 357 (6th Cir. 2001).
5/

-2-

Case No. 1:14-cv-00728
Gwin, J.
evidence in deciding whether to uphold, modify, or reverse the ALJ’s decision.”5/
Instead, the district court’s review is limited to whether the claimant can show that new and
material evidence warrants a remand.6/ The Court already performed this analysis, and concluded that
Graley had not shown that the VA disability rating required a remand.7/
Therefore, the Court adheres to its original ruling and DENIES Graley’s motion to amend
or alter the earlier opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: August 13, 2015

5/

Cline v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 96 F.3d 146, 148 (6th Cir. 1996) (emphasis added).
Id.
7/
Doc. 20 at 5-6.
6/

-3-