1:20-cv-00553
N.D. OhioSep 20, 2021Background
- Emmett T. Clayton applied for Supplemental Security Income in July 2017, claiming disability from multiple myeloma; the SSA denied his claim and an ALJ issued an adverse decision in February 2019.
- Clayton submitted additional medical records to the Appeals Council (Sept 2018–Jan 2019) and later to the district court (Apr 2019–Sept 2020) documenting a January 2019 relapse and subsequent treatment changes.
- A magistrate judge recommended affirming the Commissioner and denying remand; Clayton objected.
- The district court reviewed de novo, focusing on whether the post‑decision records warranted a Sentence Six remand under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
- The court held the Apr–Sep 2019–2020 records were new, material, and justified remand (good cause), granted a Sentence Six remand, but found the Sept 2018–Jan 2019 records submitted to the Appeals Council were not new and did not warrant remand.
- Because the case is remanded, the court declined to rule on whether the ALJ erred in applying Listing 13.07 or in the residual functional capacity assessment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sentence Six remand for Apr 2019–Sep 2020 records | Records show a Jan 2019 relapse and May 2019 oncology plan reflecting progression during period ALJ considered; thus new and material | Records merely show post‑decision worsening or are cumulative and would not change result | Court: Records are new, material, and there is good cause; remand granted |
| Records before Appeals Council (Sept 2018–Jan 2019) | These supplemental records warrant remand | Records existed before ALJ decision and were available; not new and no good cause | Court: Records not new; no Sentence Six remand |
| Whether ALJ erred under Listing 13.07 | ALJ improperly concluded Clayton did not meet or equal Listing 13.07 | ALJ applied correct standard and decision supported by evidence | Court: Declined to decide due to Sentence Six remand |
| Whether ALJ mischaracterized residual functional capacity (RFC) | ALJ misstated RFC and assessment unsupported | ALJ's RFC finding was supported by record (per magistrate) | Court: Declined to decide due to remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowen v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 478 F.3d 742 (6th Cir. 2007) (courts may reverse where agency fails to follow its own regulations and prejudices claimant)
- Foster v. Halter, 279 F.3d 348 (6th Cir. 2001) (standards for Sentence Six remand: new, material, good cause)
- Sizemore v. Sec. of Health & Human Servs., 865 F.2d 709 (6th Cir. 1988) (new evidence not material if merely shows post‑hearing worsening or is cumulative)
- Pickard v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 224 F. Supp. 2d 1161 (W.D. Tenn. 2002) (evidence shortly after ALJ decision can be probative of condition during relevant period)
- Cline v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 96 F.3d 146 (6th Cir. 1996) (district court may remand for consideration of new evidence only under Sentence Six standard)
- Cotton v. Sullivan, 2 F.3d 692 (6th Cir. 1993) (procedural limits on district court consideration of evidence submitted first to Appeals Council)