LOCKARD v. ASTRUE
Filing
25
MEMORANDUM JDUGMENT ORDER denying 21 plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment amd granting 23 defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is affirmed. See Memorandum Judgment Order for further details. Signed by Judge Gustave Diamond on 9/26/11. (kw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CONNIE L. LOCKARD,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 10-206J
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM JUDGMENT ORDER
AND
NOW,
this
~Of
September,
2011,
upon
due
consideration of the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment
pursuant to plaintiff's request for review of the decision of the
Commissioner
of
Social
Security
("Commissioner")
denying
her
application for supplemental security income ("SSP') under Title
XVI of the Social Security Act
("Act"),
IT IS ORDERED that the
Commissioner's motion for summary judgment (Document No. 23) be,
and the same hereby is, granted and plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment (Document No. 21) be, and the same hereby is, denied.
As the factfinder, an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") has an
obligation to weigh all of the facts and evidence of record and
may rej ect
or discount any evidence
reasons for doing so.
Cir. 1999).
substantial
.A072
(Rev. 8182)
- 9
by
failing
to
adequately
consider
psychiatric
evaluations
completed by Dr. Rajan in September 2005 and March 2010,
35,
526-27),
evaluation.
as
well
as Dr.
(R. 432-33).
(R. 434
Shapiro's March 2007 psychiatric
Plaintiff's argument lacks merit, as
this court has no authority to review the actions of the Appeals
Council in denying review.
As the Third Circuit explained in Matthews v. Apfel, 239 F.3d
589 (3d Cir. 2001), the standards for judicial review are governed
by the Social Security Act.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§405(g),
a
claimant who is unsuccessful in the administrative process may
seek judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner
denying benefits.
However,
where the Appeals Council denies a
claimant's request for review, it is the ALJ's decision which is
the final decision of the Commissioner, and it is that decision
the district court is to review.
the
Matthews
court
explained,
Matthews, 239 F.3d at 592.
\\ [n]
statutory authority
0
source of the district court's review)
As
(the
authorizes the court to
review the Appeals Council decision to deny review.
II
Id. at 594.
Thus, to the extent plaintiff requests this court to review
the
Appeals
Council's
decision
statutory authority to do so.
to
deny
review,
we
have
no
Rather, it is the ALJ's decision,
the final decision of the Commissioner, that is before this court
for judicial review.
The evaluations by Dr. Raj an and Dr. Shapiro
were not presented to the ALJ,
and those documents may not be
considered by this court in conducting its substantial evidence
review.
Matthews, 239 F.3d at 594-95.
<&AO 72
(Rev, 8/82)
-
10
Moreover,
to the extent plaintiff suggests that this case
should be remanded to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence six of
42
U.S.C.
§405(g)
Shapiro's
for
respective
consideration
psychiatric
of
Dr.
Rajan's
evaluations,
established that remand is appropriate.
she
and
Dr.
has
not
When a claimant seeks to
rely on evidence that was not before the ALJ, the court may remand
the case to the Commissioner if the evidence is new and material
and if there is good cause why it was not previously presented to
the ALJ.
Matthews,
239 F.3d at 593.
Here,
plaintiff has not
demonstrated that a sentence six remand is warranted.
Evidence is considered "new" if it was not in existence or
not available to the claimant at the time of the administrative
proceeding.
Sullivan v. Finkelstein, 496 U.S. 617, 626 (1990).
The psychiatric evaluations completed by Dr. Rajan and Dr. Shapiro
in September 2005 and March 2007, respectively, were available to
plaintiff prior to the administrative hearing before the ALJ,
which was held on August 25,
2009.
Thus, plaintiff could have
submitted those documents to the ALJ at the hearing if she had
wished to do so.
With
respective
to
Dr.
evidence
Rajan's
does
not
March
2010
psychiatric
meet
the
materiality
evaluation,
that
requirement.
"An implicit materiality requirement is that the new
evidence relate to the time period for which benefits were denied,
and that it not concern evidence of a later-acquired disability or
of the subsequent deterioration of the previously non-disabling
condition."
Szubak v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 745
"l>.AOn
(Rev. 8/82)
- 11
F.2d 831, 833 (3d Cir. 1984).
Here, the relevant time period is
January 10, 2008, when plaintiff filed her SSI application, until
September 25,
2009,
the date of the ALJ's decision.
Thus, Dr.
Rajan's March 2010 psychiatric evaluation post-dates the relevant
period and therefore is not material.
Finally,
plaintiff
has
not
demonstrated
good
cause
for
failing to timely submit records from Dr. Rajan and Dr. Shapiro.
As stated above, those doctors performed psychiatric evaluations
of
plaintiff
administrative
in
September
hearing was
2005
not
and
March
held until
2007
August
25,
and
the
2009.
Plaintiff could have submitted those documents to the ALJ at the
administrative hearing if she thought they were relevant, but she
failed to so.
Instead, she belatedly submitted the documents to
the Appeals Council.
Such delay does not satisfy the good cause
requirement, and a sentence six remand is not warranted in this
case.
In conclusion, after carefully and methodically considering
all of the medical evidence of record,
the ALJ determined that
plaintiff is not disabled within the meaning of the Act.
ALJ's
findings
and
conclusions
are
supported
evidence and are not otherwise erroneous.
by
substantial
Therefore, the decision
of the Commissioner must be affirmed.
~~~
Gustave Diamond
United States District Judge
~A072
(Rev. 8/82)
- 12
The
cc:
J. Kirk Kling, Esq.
630 Pleasant Valley Boulevard
Suite B
Altoona, PA 16602
Stephanie L. Haines
Assistant U.S. Attorney
319 Washington Street
Room 224, Penn Traffic Building
Johnstown, PA 15901
- 13
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?