Odis W. M. v. Saul

Background

Odis applied for Supplemental Security Income based on mental and physical disabilities. At a December 11, 2018, hearing, the administrative law judge declined to leave the record open for additional North Memorial Clinic records. The judge found that the records were submitted too late, did not fall within an exception to the five-day evidence-submission rule, and would not change the decision.

The administrative law judge later determined that Odis was not disabled under the Social Security Act and denied his application. Odis appealed, and both sides moved for summary judgment. Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson recommended denying Odis’s motion and granting Commissioner Andrew Saul’s motion. Odis objected to that recommendation.

Analysis

The district court reviewed Odis’s specific objections independently and reviewed the administrative law judge’s decision under the substantial-evidence standard. Under the applicable regulations, claimants generally must submit evidence no later than five business days before the scheduled hearing. An administrative law judge may consider late evidence if an unusual, unexpected, or unavoidable circumstance beyond the claimant’s control prevented an earlier submission.

The court concluded that Odis had not met his burden to show that an exception applied. His counsel had represented him for two years before the hearing, Odis had been a North Memorial patient for eight months, and counsel had received some records before the deadline but did not check whether they were complete. The court agreed that counsel had not made every effort or acted diligently to obtain and submit the missing records.

The court also concluded that Odis had not shown that the additional records would have changed the administrative law judge’s decision. It therefore agreed that the records were properly excluded and that the recommendation was correct.

Disposition

The court overruled Odis’s objection, adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety, denied Odis’s motion for summary judgment, and granted Saul’s motion for summary judgment. The court ordered judgment to be entered accordingly.