Cline v. Commissioner of Social Sec.

Decision Date01 May 1996
Docket NumberNo. 95-3206,95-3206
Citation96 F.3d 146
Parties, 51 Soc.Sec.Rep.Ser. 706, Unempl.Ins.Rep. (CCH) P 15553B Wayne CLINE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

David T. Tarr (argued and briefed), Canton, OH, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Steven J. Paffilas (argued and briefed), Office of U.S. Attorney, Cleveland, OH, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: LIVELY, MARTIN, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.

MOORE, Circuit Judge.

Wayne Cline appeals the denial of disability insurance benefits, arguing that the district court improperly failed to consider new medical evidence considered by the Appeals Council. Cline also argues that the Administrative Law Judge's decision, even without the new evidence, was not supported by substantial evidence. Finally, Cline claims that the magistrate judge violated due process by failing to hold oral argument. All of Cline's contentions lack merit. We affirm.

I

Cline underwent a colostomy after he was diagnosed with rectal cancer. In other words, his rectum was removed and replaced with an artificial excretory opening from the colon, called a colostomy. Cline thus had no control over his waste discharge and wore a bag attached to his colostomy to collect waste. According to Cline, this left him unable to work in his prior jobs as a truck driver and upholsterer. Indeed, Cline claims here that he can no longer perform any substantial gainful work activity as a result of his colostomy.

At Cline's administrative hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) heard testimony from a medical expert and a vocational expert, in addition to testimony from Cline himself. The ALJ found that although Cline did suffer from a severe impairment, the impairment was not medically equivalent to one listed in 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, and Cline did have the residual functional capacity to perform a significant amount of light work. Cline then sought review by the Appeals Council, appending a psychiatric evaluation of himself that had been conducted the day after the ALJ's decision. The Appeals Council considered this new evidence but found no basis for granting the request for review. Cline next filed a complaint in the district court, which referred the case to a magistrate judge. The magistrate judge recommended affirming the ALJ's decision, and he declined to consider the new psychiatric evidence submitted for the first time to the Appeals Council. Cline objected on two grounds: first, the magistrate judge failed to allow oral argument even though he had supposedly "promised" it; second, the magistrate judge was required to consider the new psychiatric evidence because the Appeals Council had done so. In a thorough and well-reasoned opinion, the district court accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation in full and affirmed the ALJ's denial of disability benefits.

II

Cline's primary argument is that because the Appeals Council considered his new psychiatric evidence, the district court was required to do so as well. He is mistaken. In Cotton v. Sullivan, 2 F.3d 692, 695-96 (6th Cir.1993), this court decided a case very much like Cline's, holding that where the Appeals Council considers new evidence but declines to review a claimant's application for disability insurance benefits on the merits, the district court cannot consider that new evidence in deciding whether to uphold, modify, or reverse the ALJ's decision. The district court can, however, remand the case for further administrative proceedings in light of the evidence, if a claimant shows that the evidence is new and material, and that there was good cause for not presenting it in the prior proceeding. Id. at 696. When the district court issues such a remand order, under sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), it "does not rule in any way as to the correctness of the administrative determination. Rather, the court remands because new evidence has come to light that was not available to the claimant at the time of the administrative proceeding and that evidence might have changed the outcome of the prior proceeding." Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 98, 111 S.Ct. 2157, 2163, 115 L.Ed.2d 78 (1991); see also Faucher v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 17 F.3d 171, 173-75 (6th Cir.1994). 1

In order to obtain a remand for further administrative proceedings, section 405(g) clearly requires a showing of both materiality and good cause, and Cline falls far short with respect to the latter requirement. The district court noted that Cline's primary argument on "good cause" appeared to be that his legal representative was not sufficiently acquainted with him in order to determine his need for psychiatric evaluation. According to Cline's counsel, it was only at the hearing that he was able to spend "a considerable amount of time" with Cline and come to the conclusion that a "psychological" evaluation might be useful. The district court properly found this excuse to be unpersuasive. The district court stated that counsel should have notified the ALJ of Cline's need for a psychiatric examination as soon as he realized it at the hearing. Counsel had an entire month to notify the ALJ before the ALJ made his decision, but Cline's lawyer elected to wait and submit the new evidence to the Appeals Council for the first time. This is clearly not good cause. Even if we excuse counsel's failure to acquaint himself with his client before the hearing, Cline cannot benefit from any failure to notify the ALJ at or following the hearing regarding the need to consider additional psychiatric evidence.

Cline also suggests that because the Appeals Council considered his new psychiatric evidence, it might implicitly have found good cause. Cline fails to realize, however, that the Appeals Council is not required to find good cause in order to consider new evidence. There is no mention of "good cause" in 20 C.F.R. § 404.970(b), which sets forth the basis upon which the Appeals Council will review new evidence. The only apparent criteria are that the evidence be "material" and that it "relate[ ] to the period on or before the date of the administrative law judge hearing decision." Therefore, there is no merit to Cline's suggestion here. 2

III

Cline next asserts that the ALJ's decision was not supported by "substantial evidence." 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Young v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 925 F.2d 146, 147 (6th Cir.1990). We disagree. The ALJ correctly applied the five-step sequential evaluation process set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. First, he found that Cline was not currently engaged in substantial gainful activity. Second, he found Cline's colostomy problem to be a "severe" impairment. Third, he concluded that the impairment was not listed "or medically equal to one listed" in 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1. Fourth, he accepted Cline's contention that Cline could not perform past relevant work. Fifth, he nonetheless determined that there were a significant number of jobs in the national economy available to Cline. With respect to this final determination, the ALJ found that Cline's residual functional capacity allowed him to do a substantial amount of light work, except that Cline needed an option to sit or stand and that Cline could not do the full range of lifting required by some light jobs. In evaluating the availability of relevant jobs, the ALJ appropriately relied upon the testimony of a vocational expert (VE).

Cline contends that the ALJ erred in questioning the VE because the ALJ did not fully credit Cline's testimony. Cline had testified that he needed to irrigate his colostomy three, four, or five times a day and that it took an hour each time to do so. The ALJ's question to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
878 cases
  • Gordon v. Berryhill, CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:18 CV-00055-HBB
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky
    • January 28, 2019
    ...was in the administrative record when the ALJ rendered the decision. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); 20 C.F.R. § 404.981; Cline v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 96 F.3d 146, 148 (6th Cir. 1996); Cotton v. Sullivan, 2 F.3d 692, 695-696 (6th Cir. 1993).The Commissioner's Sequential Evaluation Process The Social S......
  • Sullivan v. Colvin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky
    • February 20, 2014
    ...this new evidence in deciding whether to uphold, modify, or reverse the final decision of the Commissioner. Cline v. Commissioner of Social Security, 96 F.3d 146, 148 (6th Cir. 1996); Cotton v. Sullivan, 2 F.3d 692, 695-696 (6th Cir. 1993). 8. Although the ALJ did not find fully credible Pl......
  • Bloodworth v. Berryhill, CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:17-CV-00104-HBB
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky
    • May 30, 2018
    ...was in the administrative record when the ALJ rendered the decision. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); 20 C.F.R. § 404.981; Cline v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 96 F.3d 146, 148 (6th Cir. 1996); Cotton v. Sullivan, 2 F.3d 692, 695-696 (6th Cir. 1993).The Commissioner's Sequential Evaluation Process The Social S......
  • Doyle v. Carolyn W. Colvin Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • July 28, 2014
    ..."AC" exhibits submitted to the Appeals Council are not part of the record for purposes of judicial review. See Cline v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 96 F.3d 146, 148 (6th Cir. 1996); Cotton v. Sullivan, 2 F.3d 692, 696 (6th Cir. 1993). Therefore, since district court review of the administrative re......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 books & journal articles
  • Administrative review issues
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Social Security Issues Annotated. Vol. II - 2014 Contents
    • August 3, 2014
    ...ANNOTATED II-576 ALJ’s decision.’” Id., quoting Brashears v. Apfel, 73 F. Supp.2d 648 (W.D. La. 1999) ( citing Cline v. Commissioner , 96 F.3d 146, 148 (6 th Cir. 1996)). e. Seventh Circuit In considering new evidence, the Appeals Council conducts three separate inquiries: (1) whether the p......
  • Federal court issues
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Social Security Issues Annotated. Vol. II - 2014 Contents
    • August 3, 2014
    ...no due process violation occurred by virtue of the incomplete transcript. Id. c. Sixth Circuit In Cline v. Commissioner of Social Sec. , 96 F.3d 146, 148 (6 th Cir. 1996), the Sixth Circuit held that where the Appeals Council considers new evidence, but declines review, the district court c......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Social Security Issues Annotated. Vol. II - 2014 Contents
    • August 3, 2014
    ...203.21, 212.12, 210.3, 509.3, 1104.5 Cline v. Chater , No. 95-2076 (4th Cir. Apr. 19, 1996), § 1210.5 Cline v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. , 96 F.3d 146, 148 (6th Cir. 1996), §§ 210.4, 509.3, 603.3, 604.5, 606.1, 606.4, 1210.5 Cline v. Sullivan , 939 F.2d 560, 563, 567 (8th Cir. 1991), 8th-10, §§ 1......
  • Federal Court Review
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Social Security Disability Practice. Volume Two - 2017 Contents
    • August 17, 2017
    ...332 (5th Cir. 2005). Sixth Circuit: Cotton v. Sullivan , 2 F.3d 692 (6th Cir. 1993) (cited in Cline v. Commissioner of Social Security, 96 F.3d 146 (6th Cir. 1996)). Seventh Circuit: Farrell v. Astrue , 692 F.2d 767 (7th Cir. 2012); Keys v. Barnhart, 347 F.3d 990 (7th Cir. 2003); Perkins v.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT