(SS) Truelsen v. Commissioner of Social Security
2:15-cv-02386
| E.D. Cal. | Aug 26, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Michael Eric Truelsen applied for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) alleging onset July 9, 2010; date last insured for DIB was September 30, 2011.
- ALJ held a hearing (Sept. 15, 2014) and denied benefits (Nov. 26, 2014): severe affective/schizophrenic disorder, RFC for full range of exertional work but limited to simple repetitive (unskilled) tasks with no public contact; unable to perform past relevant work but could perform other jobs.
- Appeals Council denied review (Oct. 9, 2015); plaintiff submitted a Sept. 2, 2015 VA letter showing VA disability rating increased from 10% to 100%.
- Plaintiff’s sole claim on judicial review: the Sept. 2, 2015 VA letter is new and material evidence requiring remand.
- Commissioner argued procedural deficiencies and that the VA decision is not dispositive and is not material to the insured period because its effective date was March 18, 2015 (post–date last insured).
- District court found plaintiff’s procedural failings insufficient to bar consideration but held the VA letter was not material to the period through Sept. 30, 2011 and denied remand, affirming the Commissioner’s decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether new VA evidence warrants remand | The Sept. 2, 2015 VA letter (100% rating) is new and material and requires remand | VA decision is not binding; evidence is not material to the insured period because effective date is March 18, 2015; procedural objections | Denied remand: evidence not material to period ending Sept. 30, 2011; ALJ decision affirmed |
| Whether plaintiff’s procedural failure to timely file the VA letter bars relief | Impliedly minimal/neglectful; Appeals Council considered the letter | Commissioner argues plaintiff delayed producing the letter to court and counsel | Court declined to dismiss on procedural grounds because Appeals Council considered the evidence and Commissioner had chance to respond |
Key Cases Cited
- Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 1999) (standards for reviewing Commissioner’s decision)
- Connett v. Barnhart, 340 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2003) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2007) (standard for substantial evidence review)
- Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2005) (evidence a reasonable mind accepts)
- Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2001) (ALJ’s duties re credibility and medical conflicts)
- Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (upholding ALJ where evidence permits multiple rational interpretations)
- Brewes v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 682 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2012) (Appeals Council consideration makes evidence part of the administrative record)
- Tidwell v. Apfel, 161 F.3d 599 (9th Cir. 1999) (claimant must be disabled on or before date last insured)