Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Tran v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

United States District Court, D. Oregon

August 2, 2017

LINH THI MINH TRAN, Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant.

          Linh Thi Minh Tran, Pro se Plaintiff

          Brett Edward Eckelberg Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel, Janice E. Hebert U.S. Attorney's Office

          OPINION & ORDER

          MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ United States District Judge.

         Defendant Commissioner of Social Security Administration brings this “Motion to Strike Extra-Record Evidence” from pro se Plaintiff Linh Thi Minh Tran's Complaint. The Court grants Defendant's motion.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff alleges disability beginning November 1, 2011. Tr. 24. Plaintiff appeared at a hearing for disability benefits before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) on June 26, 2015, but the hearing was postponed because Plaintiff's medical file was incomplete. Tr. 52-54. The ALJ allowed Plaintiff additional time to submit medical records. Tr. 54.

         On February 17, 2016, Plaintiff appeared for another hearing before an ALJ. Tr. 55. On March 8, 2016, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was not disabled under the Social Security Act. Tr. 36-37. On August 9, 2016, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review. Tr. 7.

         On October 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this Court, seeking review of the ALJ's decision. Compl. Plaintiff attached 46 pages to her Complaint. Compl. Ex. 1, ECF 1-1.

         STANDARDS

         Under the Social Security Act, courts may review decisions of the Social Security Commissioner. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Remand of an ALJ decision in a social security case occurs under either sentence four or sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 99-100 (1991). A sentence four remand is a final judgment that the “agency erred in some respect in reaching a decision to deny benefits, ” which must be based solely on the administrative record before the district court. Akopyan v. Barnhart, 296 F.3d 852, 854 (9th Cir. 2002). Sentence six remands, by contrast, do not constitute final judgments. Id. at 855. Instead, sentence six remands are made absent a determination of whether the ALJ erred, and in only two situations: “where the Commissioner requests a remand before answering the complaint, or where new, material evidence is adduced that was for good cause not presented before the agency.” Id. The claimant has the burden of demonstrating materiality and good cause. Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 462 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Bales v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 3:14-CV-01553-HZ, 2015 WL 5686884, at *4 (D. Or. Sept. 25, 2015), aff'd sub nom. Bales v. Berryhill, No. 15-35904, 2017 WL 1488289 (9th Cir. Apr. 26, 2017).

         DISCUSSION

         Defendant moves to strike the documents attached to Plaintiff's Complaint.[1] The Court grants Defendant's motion.

         I. Documents Already in the Record

         Half of the attached pages are already in the record. While some of the documents submitted by Plaintiff contain additional handwritten notations, the notations do not materially change the substance of what is already included in the record. The Court will consider these documents upon review of the Commissioner's decision, regardless of whether the pages remain attached to Plaintiff's Complaint. Thus, the Court strikes the following 23 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.