Quiana Chase v. Carolyn Colvin

MEMORANDUM

Quiana La Nay Chase appeals a judgment of the district court affirming the denial by the Commissioner of Social Security of her applications for social security disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Chase argues that remand is required under 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g), because evidence was improperly rejected by the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) and because new and material evidence emerged after the ALJ’s decision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

1. We review the district court’s order de novo, and must uphold the agency decision unless it was “not supported by substantial evidence” or “based on legal error.” Ryan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 528 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th Cir. 2008). A district court’s decision not to remand “in light of new evidence” under sentence six of § 405(g) is reviewed de novo as to the determination whether proffered new evidence is “material,” but for abuse of discretion as to whether the applicant has established the requisite “good cause” for late submission. Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 461-62 (9th Cir. 2001).

2. Chase argues that the ALJ improperly rejected a report of Pat Cripe, a social…