645 Fed.Appx. 575 (9th Cir. 2016), 13-36181, Carmickle v. Colvin

Docket Nº:13-36181
Citation:645 Fed.Appx. 575
Party Name:WILLIAM A. CARMICKLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee
Attorney:For WILLIAM A. CARMICKLE, Plaintiff - Appellant: Max Rae, Max Rae, Attorney, Salem, OR. For CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant - Appellee: Adrian Lee Brown, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USAO, Portland, OR; Nicole Jabaily, Leisa Wolf, Esquire, SSA - SOCIAL SEC...
Judge Panel:Before: BERZON and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and SAMMARTINO, District Judge.[**]
Case Date:March 23, 2016
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 575

645 Fed.Appx. 575 (9th Cir. 2016)

WILLIAM A. CARMICKLE, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee

No. 13-36181

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

March 23, 2016

         Argued and Submitted March 7, 2016, Portland, Oregon

         NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)

          Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. D.C. No. 3:12-cv-01629 MO. Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding.

          REVERSED AND REMANDED.

         For WILLIAM A. CARMICKLE, Plaintiff - Appellant: Max Rae, Max Rae, Attorney, Salem, OR.

         For CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant - Appellee: Adrian Lee Brown, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USAO, Portland, OR; Nicole Jabaily, Leisa Wolf, Esquire, SSA - SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Office of the General Counsel, Seattle, WA.

         Before: BERZON and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and SAMMARTINO, District Judge.[**]

          MEMORANDUM[*]

         Plaintiff-Appellant William A. Carmickle appeals the denial of his application for social security disability benefits. Because the facts and procedural history are familiar to the parties, we do not recite them here except as necessary to explain our disposition. We review the district court's decision affirming the Commissioner's denial of benefits de novo. Valentine v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 690 (9th Cir. 2009). For the reasons stated below, we reverse.

         After the Administrative Law Judge (" ALJ" ) denied his claim for benefits, Carmickle presented additional evidence to the Appeals Council. The Appeals Council considered the newly presented evidence but declined to review the ALJ's decision denying benefits. Under Brewes v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 682 F.3d 1157, 1159-60 (9th Cir. 2012), that additional evidence became part of the administrative record. Accordingly, the

Page 576

district court was required to consider that evidence " in determining whether the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence." Id. at 1160.

         The district court erred by...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP