Case: 13-11432 Date Filed: 05/14/2014 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-11432
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:12-cv-00889-CLS
LISA HOWARD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, COMMISSIONER,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(May 14, 2014)
Before HULL, MARCUS, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Lisa Howard appeals from the district court’s judgment affirming the
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s (“Commissioner”) denial of
Case: 13-11432 Date Filed: 05/14/2014 Page: 2 of 6
her application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits, pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On appeal, Howard contends that the Appeals Council
(“AC”) erred when it did not accept all of the additional evidence that Howard
submitted, in the first instance, to the AC. Howard also argues that the AC’s
written denial of review failed to show that it adequately evaluated Howard’s
additional evidence that the AC had accepted. Howard further contends the district
court improperly failed to remand her case to the AC.
The “final” decision of the Commissioner is subject to judicial review.
42 U.S.C. § 405(g). We review de novo the Commissioner’s conclusions of law.
Ingram v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 496 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2007). With a few
exceptions, the claimant is allowed to present new evidence at each stage of the
administrative process. Id. at 1261. The AC must consider new, material, and
chronologically relevant evidence and must review the case if the Administrative
Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) action, findings, or conclusion is contrary to the weight of
the evidence currently of record. Id. When the AC refuses to consider new
evidence submitted to it and denies review, as in the instant case, that decision is
subject to judicial review because it may amount to an error of law. Keeton v.
Department of Health & Human Servs., 21 F.3d 1064, 1066 (11th Cir. 1994). We
will reverse where the Commissioner fails to apply the correct law or to provide us
with sufficient reasoning to allow us to determine that the proper legal analysis has
2
Case: 13-11432 Date Filed: 05/14/2014 Page: 3 of 6
been conducted. Id. at 1066. We have held that if an agency in its proceedings
violates its rules and prejudice results, the proceedings are tainted and any actions
resulting from the proceeding cannot stand. Hall v. Schweiker, 660 F.2d 116, 119
(5th Cir. Unit A Sept. 1981).
We review the Commissioner’s decision to determine whether it is
supported by substantial evidence. Ingram, 496 F.3d at 1260. We must affirm a
decision that is supported by substantial evidence even if the evidence
preponderates against the ALJ’s findings. Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363
F.3d 1155, 1158-59 (11th Cir. 2004). “Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla
and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.” Id. at 1158. Moreover, we may not reweigh the evidence or
substitute our judgment for that of the ALJ. Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1210
(11th Cir. 2005). “A clearly articulated credibility finding with substantial
supporting evidence in the record will not be disturbed by a reviewing court.”
Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553, 1562 (11th Cir. 1995).
An individual claiming Social Security disability benefits must prove that
she is disabled. Jones v. Apfel, 190 F.3d 1224, 1228 (11th Cir. 1999). The Social
Security regulations provide a five-step sequential evaluation process for
determining if a claimant has proven that she is disabled. Id. A claimant must
show that (1) she is not performing substantial gainful activity; (2) she has a severe
3
Case: 13-11432 Date Filed: 05/14/2014 Page: 4 of 6
impairment; (3) the impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals an
impairment listed in the regulations; or (4) she cannot return to past work; and,
(5) if the Secretary identifies other work, she cannot perform other work based on
her age, education, and experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; Phillips v. Barnhart,
357 F.3d 1232, 1237 (11th Cir. 2004). The ALJ must assess and make a finding
about the claimant’s residual functional capacity based on all of the relevant
medical and other evidence in the case. Id. at 1238.
In Epps v. Harris, 624 F.2d 1267, 1273 (5th Cir. 1980), the claimant
submitted significant post-hearing evidence of disability. The Epps Court
observed that the AC had merely noted that it had considered additional evidence
that was submitted to it and nonetheless had found the ALJ’s decision to be
“correct.” Based on that observation, the Epps Court determined that the AC
perfunctorily adhered to the decision of the hearing examiner. Such a failure alone
made us unable to hold that the Commissioner’s findings were supported by
substantial evidence and required us to remand the case for a determination based
on the total record. In Epps, we also determined that the ALJ’s decision did not
properly consider the disabling effect of the claimant’s necessary, ongoing
treatment regimen. Id. Nevertheless, when a claimant properly submits additional
evidence to the AC, a reviewing court must consider the entire record, including
4
Case: 13-11432 Date Filed: 05/14/2014 Page: 5 of 6
the additional evidence submitted to the AC, to determine whether the denial of
benefits was substantially erroneous. Ingram, 496 F.3d at 1262.
We review de novo the judgment of the district court. Ingram v. Comm’r of
Soc. Sec., 496 F.3d 1253, 1260 (11th Cir. 2007). Section 405(g) permits a district
court to remand an application for benefits to the Commissioner by two methods,
which are commonly denominated Sentence Four remands and Sentence Six
remands, each of which remedies a separate problem. Ingram, 496 F.3d at 1261.
The fourth sentence of § 405(g) provides the federal court power to enter, upon the
pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or
reversing the decision of the Commissioner, with or without remanding the case
for a rehearing. The sixth sentence of § 405(g) provides a federal court the power
to remand the application for benefits to the Commissioner for the taking of
additional evidence upon a showing that there is new evidence which is material
and that there is good cause for the failure to incorporate such evidence into the
record in a prior proceeding.
When a case is remanded, the AC may make a decision, or it may remand
the case to an ALJ with instructions to take action and issue a decision or return the
case to the AC with a recommended decision. If the case is remanded by the AC
to the ALJ, the process starts over again. If the case is decided by the AC, then that
decision is subject to judicial review. Id. Remand is appropriate when a district
5
Case: 13-11432 Date Filed: 05/14/2014 Page: 6 of 6
court fails to consider the record as a whole, including evidence submitted for the
first time to the AC, in determining whether the Commissioner’s final decision is
supported by substantial evidence. Id. at 1266-67.
The ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, and none of
Howard’s additional evidence contradicted the ALJ’s decision. Thus, first, even if
the AC improperly failed to consider some of Howard’s additional evidence, any
error was harmless because we independently reviewed all submitted evidence.
Second, for the same reason, any shortcoming in the AC’s articulation of its
rationale for adopting the ALJ’s decision was, at most, harmless. Third, Howard
has failed to show that the district court erred because Howard’s additional
evidence did not warrant a remand.
AFFIRMED.
6