Spencer v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:2008cv00071 - Document 16 (W.D. Ky. 2008)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER denying 11 Motion to Supplement. Signed by Senior Judge Edward H. Johnstone on 12/12/2008. cc:counsel (CSD)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY BOWLING GREEN DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:08CV71-J LILLIE SPENCER PLAINTIFF v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security DEFENDANT MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD Plaintiff seeks to supplement the record before this Court with medical records that she submitted to the Appeals Council. The Commissioner has filed an objection. The claimant has attempted to rely upon these medical records in her Fact and Law Summary. It is unclear whether the Appeals Council considered the new evidence. Nonetheless, the Appeals Council declined plaintiff s request for review, and those medical records are not part of the administrative record that the district court can consider in deciding whether to uphold, modify, or reverse the final decision of the Commissioner. Cline v. Commissioner of Social Security, 96 F.3d 146, 148 (6th Cir. 1996); Cotton v. Sullivan, 2 F.3d 692, 695-696 (6th Cir. 1993). The Court may consider new evidence for the limited purpose of determining whether to order a pre-judgment remand of the case to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings. Cline, 96 F.3d at 148; 42 U.S.C. ยง 405(g). The party seeking a prejudgment remand has the burden of demonstrating the new evidence is material and that good cause exists for not presenting it to the Administrative Law Judge, Faucher v. Secretary of HHS, 17 F.3d 171, 174-175 (6th Cir. 1994). New evidence is material if there is a reasonable probability that it would have changed the outcome of the prior proceeding, Sizemore v. Secretary of HHS, 865 F.2d 709, 711 (6th Cir. 1988) (per curiam). It is possible that the new evidence would have changed the outcome of the ALJ s Decision; however, the Court cannot find good cause for the failure to submit the evidence to the ALJ prior to issuance of the Decision. As a practical matter, the Court is also cognizant of the difficulties social security practitioners face in obtaining supporting medical opinions from treating physicians in a timely manner. Nonetheless, the Court is bound to follow the applicable law and decline to enter a Sentence Six remand or the requested relief to allow supplementation of the administrative record. Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff s Motion is DENIED. This is a final and appealable Memorandum Opinion and Order, and there is no just cause for delay. December 12, 2008
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
