Barbara Pennington v. Commissioner Social Security
683 F. App'x 168
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Barbara Pennington applied for Disability Insurance Benefits alleging disability since 1993 from a back injury and allergies; initial application denied and ALJ denied benefits in a 2008 decision after a pro se hearing.
- Pennington later obtained counsel and submitted additional medical records (including a 1995 statement from Dr. John Boor) to the Appeals Council; the Council denied review.
- Pennington sued, and the District Court granted summary judgment for the Commissioner, concluding the new evidence was not "new" or "material" for a sentence-six remand and that Pennington failed to show good cause for not presenting it earlier.
- On appeal, Pennington raised due process, undue influence, record-acceptance, and improper weighing of medical opinions; many arguments were raised for the first time on appeal.
- The Third Circuit limited review to whether substantial evidence supported the ALJ, addressed the standards for sentence-six remand, and concluded the District Court’s rulings were correct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether District Court could consider evidence not before ALJ / whether remand under sentence six of §405(g) required | Dr. Boor’s 1995 records are new and material and warrant remand | Evidence was not new or material and Pennington lacked good cause for late submission | Denied remand; records not new/material and no good cause shown |
| Whether ALJ violated due process / undue influence at pro se hearing | ALJ violated due process; Pennington was unduly influenced and disadvantaged proceeding pro se | Pennington knowingly waived counsel and adequately presented evidence at hearing | Claim waived on appeal (not raised below) and insufficient to require remand |
| Whether Appeals Council/ALJ improperly failed to accept records | SSA/ALJ improperly rejected records submitted later | Records were not before ALJ; Appeals Council properly declined review | Waived or without merit — Appeals Council need not accept late evidence absent sentence-six criteria |
| Whether ALJ improperly weighed medical opinion evidence | ALJ gave too much weight to certain providers and too little to treating/examining doctors | ALJ reasonably discounted opinions inconsistent with objective findings | Even if not waived, ALJ’s weighing supported by substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Rutherford v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 546 (3d Cir. 2005) (standard for substantial-evidence review in Social Security cases)
- Matthews v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 589 (3d Cir. 2001) (requirements for sentence-six remand: new, material, good cause)
- Sullivan v. Finkelstein, 496 U.S. 617 (U.S. 1990) (sentence-six remand appropriate for evidence not existing or unavailable at hearing)
- Jones v. Sullivan, 954 F.2d 125 (3d Cir. 1991) (district court generally may not consider evidence not presented to ALJ)
- Livingston v. Califano, 614 F.2d 342 (3d Cir. 1980) (lack of counsel at hearing does not alone justify remand)
- Chandler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 667 F.3d 356 (3d Cir. 2011) (treating physician rule and circumstances permitting discounting of treating opinions)