Cox v. Heckler, 84-2280
| Decision Date | 22 August 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-2280,84-2280 |
| Citation | 770 F.2d 411 |
| Parties | , Unempl.Ins.Rep. CCH 16,267 Granvil William COX, Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
S.S.C. Drake, Lynchburg, Va., (J. Gorman Rosenberger, Jr., Kizer, Phillips & Petty, Lynchburg, Va., on brief) for appellant.
John E. Newton, Jr., Dept. of Health & Human Services, Philadelphia, Pa. (Beverly Dennis, III, Regional Atty., Edith Ho, Asst. Regional Atty. Office of Gen. Counsel, Dept. of Health and Human Services, Philadelphia, Pa., John P. Alderman, U.S. Atty., E. Montgomery Tucker, Asst. U.S. Atty., Roanoke, Va., on brief) for appellee.
Before WIDENER and HALL, Circuit Judges, and KNAPP, Senior District Judge, United States District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia, sitting by designation.
Granvil William Cox appeals from the district court's order, affirming the Secretary's denial of social security disability benefits. We find that Cox is entitled to have his claim reconsidered by the Secretary in light of new and material evidence which has become available following the conclusion of the administrative proceedings below. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the district court and direct that the case be remanded to the Secretary for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Claimant was born on March 25, 1936, and has completed the requirements for a high school equivalency diploma (GED). He was employed in the past primarily as a foundry laborer. The record reveals that claimant's insured status under the Social Security Act expired on December 31, 1983. See 42 U.S.C. Sec. 423(c)(1).
In 1979, Cox was awarded a closed period of disability benefits from September 30, 1977, through October 31, 1978, due to stomach problems, including pancreatitis. On April 15, 1980, Cox filed a new application for disability benefits, alleging that he has been disabled since January, 1979, due to a back problem, lung problems, and high blood pressure. This application was denied initially and on reconsideration. Following an administrative hearing on the claim, the ALJ concluded that Cox was not disabled. The ALJ's opinion was adopted by the Appeals Council and Cox appealed to district court. The district court remanded the case to the Secretary for consideration of new medical evidence concerning claimant's longstanding lung problems, including a confirmed diagnosis of sarcoidosis, a chronic disease of unknown cause characterized by the formation of nodules in the lungs. 1
On remand, the ALJ found that claimant's degenerative pulmonary disease was the medical equivalent of the Secretary's listing of impairments for diffuse pulmonary fibrosis, found at 20 C.F.R. Subpart P, Appendix 1, Sec. 3.04. The ALJ concluded that Cox was disabled from his lung impairment as of May 4, 1981, and awarded benefits as of that date. According to the ALJ, Cox's other impairments, including chronic diarrhea, hypertension, depression, hernia, and arthritis, were not disabling.
The Appeals Council reversed the ALJ's decision to award benefits, concluding that Cox's pulmonary disease was only mild to moderate and left him with the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work. Cox subsequently filed the present action in district court, which, in an opinion filed on September 20, 1984, affirmed the Appeals Council's denial of benefits as supported by substantial evidence. The district court further denied claimant's motion to remand the case to the Secretary for consideration of new medical reports produced subsequent to the administrative proceedings. The district court held that the reports, dated in late 1983 and 1984, were merely cumulative and did not provide good cause for a remand.
This appeal followed.
On appeal, Cox contends that the district court (1) failed to consider the cumulative effect of his multiple impairments, (2) improperly rejected the opinion of his treating physician, (3) ignored recent documentary evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hill v. Colvin
...time period is proper when such evidence may be "reflective of a possible earlier and progressive degeneration"); Cox v. Heckler, 770 F.2d 411, 413 (4th Cir. 1985) (evidence should not be disregarded merely because evaluation occurred outside relevant time period so long as it may be releva......
-
Ledbetter v. Astrue
...Barnhart, 285 F. Supp. 2d 728, 733 (S.D. W. Va. 2003) (citing Wooldridge v. Bowen, 816 F.2d 157, 160 (4th Cir. 1987); Cox v. Heckler, 770 F.2d 411, 413 (4th Cir. 1985); Leviner v. Richardson, 443 F.2d 1338, 1343 (4th Cir. 1971)). Additionally, new evidence is "material" when it contradicts ......
-
Kemp v. Astrue, Civil Action No. 8:09-3318-JDA
...the relevant time period so long as it may be relevant to prove a disability during the relevant time period. See Cox v. Heckler, 770 F.2d 411, 413 (4th Cir. 1985) (finding remand proper to consider post-insured status evidence where the record demonstrated that the claimant had a progressi......
-
Farley v. Colvin
...Claimant was disabled during the relevant period of time. See Wooldridge v. Bowen, 816 F.2d 157, 160 (4th Cir. 1987); Cox v. Heckler, 770 F.2d 411, 413 (4th Cir. 1985); Leviner v. Richardson, 443 F.2d 1338, 1343 (4th Cir. 1971). The Court is not persuaded by Claimant's argument and finds th......