Andreasen v. Colvin

Filing 28

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 23 Objection filed by Christopher W. Andreasen, and 24 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief; Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement the Record and to Reverse and Remand is DENIED, and the case is dismissed; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton. (DN)

1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8

CHRISTOPHER W. ANDREASEN,

CASE NO. 13-cv-5612 RBL

9
Plaintiff,
10

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO REMAND

v.
11
12
13

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security ,
Defendant.

14
15

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Christopher Andreasen’s Alternative

16 Motion to Supplement the Record and to Reverse and Remand. Andreasen applied for, and was
17 denied, disability benefits by an ALJ in May 2012. The Appeals Council denied his request for
18 review of the decision in May 2013, and Andreasen filed a complaint in this Court, seeking
19 judicial review of the ALJ’s decision.
20

Meanwhile, Andreasen re-applied and was awarded disability benefits in June of 2013.

21 That decision was largely based on a new medical examination, which noted moderately severe
22 neck impairment and markedly severe low back impairment. Andreasen now moves to
23 supplement the record with the documentation of the later favorable decision, and remand for
24 further proceedings to determine if the two decisions are reconcilable or inconsistent.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
REMAND - 1

1

Andreasen cites Luna v. Astrue, 623 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2010) to support his contention

2 that remand is appropriate in light of the subsequent favorable decision. A district court may
3 remand a case to the Social Security Commissioner if there is new and material evidence that
4 could have potentially affected the prior determination. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Luna, 623 F.3d at
5 1034. In Luna, the plaintiff was awarded benefits on her second application, but the Notice of
6 Award notes a finding of disability only one day after she was deemed not disabled in her first
7 application. The “immediate proximity” between the two findings made remand the appropriate
8 remedy to determine the basis for the inconsistency. Id. at 1035.
9

Luna is factually distinguishable from this case because the two decisions are easily

10 reconciled. More than a year separated the original denial of benefits and the subsequent benefits
11 award, so this case lacks Luna’s temporal proximity. Furthermore, Andreasen’s later benefits
12 award was based on new medical evidence and new disabilities that did not exist or were far less
13 severe at at the time of his first application. There is no reason to conclude that the later award
14 would have any bearing on the initial denial.
15

The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge J. Richard

16 Creatura affirming the denial of disability benefits from Andreasen’s first application.
17 Andreasen’s Motion to Supplement the Record and to Reverse and Remand is DENIED, and the
18 case is dismissed.
19

Dated this 26th day of July, 2014.

21

A

22

RONALD B. LEIGHTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20

23
24
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
REMAND - 2