In this Sоcial Security case, plaintiff Irma Willis appeals the Secretary’s denial of widow’s disability benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 402(e). An administrative law judge found that Ms. Willis was not disabled. This determination was upheld by the Appeals Council. On review the district court affirmed and we agree there exists substantial evidence to uphold the denial of benefits.
Appellant was born on Deсember 31,1919 and has a fifth-grade education. Her only employment experience has been as a domestic worker. She has not worked since 1977. Presently she is receiving supplemental security income benefits.
In her administrative hearing she testified that she was disabled due to difficulties with her vision, high blood pressure, gastritis, and arthritis. She claimed her arthritis prevented her from walking for more than two blocks. She also claimed she had trouble standing for any extended period of time and that she could not sit still for more
On appeal, Appellant raises two issuеs. First, she contends the district court erred when it refused to remand her case to allow the Secretary to consider additional medical evidence not presented during her administrative hearing. Second, she argues substantial evidence does not exist to uphold the Secretary’s denial of benefits. We disagree with both of Appellant’s contentions.
We first address the question of whether the district court erred in not remanding her case to have the Secretary consider medical evidence not presented to the administrative law judge.
At the close of the May 8, 1981 administrative hearing the following colloquy occurred between the administrative law judge (ALJ) and counsel for Ms. Willis:
ALJ: Well, I’m not going tо leave this record open. I think you insofar as the administrative responsibility to develop it — I think it has been met. And aside from that with respect to the burden of proof here, it is on the claimant in these cases to establish medical evidence of the impairment and I just don’t find any medical evidence of a significant nervous, psychiatric or mentаl problem in the record. So, I — I’m not going to order any additional examinations on behalf of — of the government. Do you want additional time to send this lady out at your own expеnse?
ATTORNEY: I would have to discuss that with my associates and my co-counsel in this case. I won’t ask for additional time at this time.
ALJ: Well, alright. Then the record will be closed and the matter submitted. And anything further?
ATTORNEY: No, sir.
After the hearing, counsel for Appellant did not advise the AU that she sought to have additional examinations for her client or that she wanted the record re-opened. In fact, it was not until June 5,1981, several days after the ALJ denied Willis’ application for benefits, that Appellant was examined by Dr. Saim Giray, a psychiatric expert.
Dr. Giray’s evaluаtion of Ms. Willis was completed on June 10. In his report, Dr. Giray concluded that, based on his findings and evaluations of Appellant’s physical and mental condition, Appellant was “totally and permanently disabled and unable to engage in any kind of gainful employment activity in any capacity.” This report was submitted to the Appeals Council along with Appellant’s request for review of the ALJ’s decision denying her benefits.
42 U.S.C. § 405(g) as amended, P.L. 96-265. § 307, 94 Stat. 458 (1980), provides that a reviewing court “may at any time order additional evidence to be taken before the Secretary, but only upon a showing that there is new evidence which is material and that there is good cause for the failure to incorporate such evidence into the record in a prior proceeding.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (emphasis added.)
We have exаmined the legislative history of the 1980 amendment to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and it clearly indicates the amendment was designed to limit the ability of a reviewing federal court to remand the case to the Secretary. The Senate Report notes “under existing law the court itself, on its own motion or on motion of the claimant, has discretionary authority ‘for good cause’ tо remand the case back to the ALJ. It would appear that although many of these court remands are justified, some remands are undertaken because the judge disagrees with the outcome of the case.... The bill would continue the provision of present law which gives the court discretionary authority to remand cases to the Secrеtary, but adds the requirement that remand for the purpose of taking new evidence be limited to cases in which there is a showing that there is new evidence which is material and that there was good cause for failure to
Further support of the scope of the amendment to 405(g) is found in the floor statements of Congressman Pickle, one of the floor managers of the bill. He noted that with the amendment, “we have tried to speed up the judicial process so that these cases would not just go on and on and on. The court could [prior to the amendment] remand them back down to the ALJ without cause or оther reason which was weakening the appeal process at that level.... We also closed the record at the administrative law judge level.” 125 Cong.Rec. 23383 (1979).
It is clear from our reading of the legislative history that this provision was enacted, at least in part, to limit the discretion of federal judges to remand for reconsideration of nеw evidence.
Accord. Dorsey v. Heckler,
Thus, under the amended provision this court may remand the case only when claimant shows that (1) new material evidence is available and (2) good cause is shоwn for failure to incorporate such evidence into the prior proceeding. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
In
Dorsey, supra,
an AU had found that claimant had failed to substantiate her claim of mental impairmеnt at the administrative hearing. During the pendency of the Appeals Council review, however, claimant developed debilitating mental symptoms, and was hospitalized. In this instanсe the Fifth Circuit found good cause for her failure to incorporate the evidence into the administrative proceeding.
Appellant also claims that substantial evidence does not exist to support the Secretary’s finding that she is not disabled as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(B). Under the statute a widow is considered not disabled unless her physical or mental impairments are of a level of severity which preclude her from “engaging in any gainful activity.” The statute gives the Secretary the authority to establish regulations determining which impairments will be deemed sufficient to preclude a widow from engaging in any gainful activity. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(B). These regulations are reported in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (1982).
None of the medical reports submitted to the ALJ establish that Appellant suffered from a physical or mental impairment listed in Appendix 1, or suffered from an impairment the medical equivalent of one of the listed impairments. A review of this medi
The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed.