United States District Court, D. Oregon
Thi Minh Tran, Pro se Plaintiff
Edward Eckelberg Social Security Administration Office of the
General Counsel, Janice E. Hebert U.S. Attorney's Office
OPINION & ORDER
A. HERNÁNDEZ United States District Judge.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
moves to strike the documents attached to Plaintiff's
Complaint. The Court grants Defendant's motion.
Documents Already in the Record
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 ...