Wood v. Social Security Administration
Filing
27
OPINION & ORDER: Plaintiff's motion to amend the record (# 20 ) is DENIED. Signed on September 8, 2014 by Judge James A. Redden. (eo)
,,
.
1N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
JANELLE WOOD,
3:13-CV-01722 RE
Plaintiff:
OPINION AND ORDER
V.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
REDDEN, Judge:
Plaintiff Janelle Wood brought this action to challenge Defendant's determination that
she is not eligible for Title II benefits before her date last insured of December 31, 1999.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 9, 2006, Wood filed applications for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") and
Supplemental Security Income, alleging disability since December 2 1, 1999, due to dyslexia,
1 - OPINION AND ORDER
lumbar fusion and laminectomy, depression, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and neck injury.
Tr. 141. Her applications were denied initially and upon reconsideration. On September 2,
2009, after an August 2009 hearing, an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") found her not
disabled prior to August 28, 2007. Tr. 388-97. On October 30, 2009, Wood requested that the
Appeals Council review the ALJ ' s decision. Tr. 17. On November 27, 2009, the ALJ issued an
amended decision in which he clarified that Wood's Title JI DIB application was dismissed
because the insured status requirements were not met as of the date disability was established.
Tr. 26-39. On January 11, 1010, Wood requested that the Appeals Council review the ALJ's
amended decision. Tr. 14-15. On January 22, 2010, the Appeals Council reviewed the
September 9, 2009 ALJ decision and denied Wood's application for DIB because she last met the
insured requirement on December 31, 1999. Tr. 12-13. On May 18, 2010, Wood submitted
additional evidence to the Appeals Council. On August 19, 2013, the Appeals Council noti lied
Wood that the ALJ's amended decision was not valid because her appeal to the Appeals Council
vested jurisdiction with that Council and not the ALJ. Tr. 5-6. The Appeals Council ' s decision
thus became the final decision of the Commissioner, from which Wood now appeals.
Plaintiff now Moves (#20) to Supplement the Record by adding:
1. December 3, 2009 letter from James MacMillan, M.D. (# 20 pp. 7-8);
2. May 13, 2010 letter to the Social Security Administration from Plaintiff s attorney
George J. Wall (#20 p. 6); and
3. A photocopy of a Certified Mail receipt (#20 p. 9).
LEGAL STANDARDS
2 - OPINION AND ORDER
.
..
. ...
The Commissioner files "a certified copy of the transcript of the record including the
evidence upon which the findings and decision complained of are based." 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
New evidence must be submitted to the Appeals Council because it prepares the certified
administrative record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.976(b). As the Commissioner points out, the Appeals
Council does not have to accept evidence it determines is not new, material, or related to the
period at issue. The Commissioner argues that the Appeals Council determined not to consider
the additional evidence. Defendant's Response (#23) to Motion to Supplement, p. 2. However,
the record indicates that the Appeals Council did not consider the additional evidence nor
determine whether it was new, material, or related to the period at issue.
Plaintiff acknowledges that the usual procedure would be to seek remand of this matter to
the Appeals Council to consider additional evidence. Plaintiff cites no authority for the
proposition that this court may amend the administrative record. Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion
(#20) to Amend the Record is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this ___;;L_ day of September, 2014.
/../ /} / '1JA _.
:
0
~
I
/I
JAMES A~DD~ "
United States District Judge
3 - OPINION AND ORDER
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?