Gibbs v. Astrue ( 2011 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
December 1, 2011
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
TERRY L. GIBBS,
Plaintiff–Appellant,
v. No. 11-6076
(D.C. No. 5:05-CV-01189-M)
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner (W.D. Okla.)
of the Social Security Administration,
Defendant–Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before LUCERO, BALDOCK, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.
Terry Gibbs, appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s order reversing
the administrative decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration (“Commissioner”) and remanding the case to the agency for
further proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (“Sentence Four
Remand”). Gibbs argues the district court abused its discretion by remanding for
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is
not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,
and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value
consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
further proceedings when it should have simply granted his “Motion For
Judgment as a Matter of Law” and awarded him benefits. Because the remand
was appropriate, we affirm the district court’s decision.
I
Gibbs first applied for social security disability benefits in 1991, alleging
that he became disabled on July 27, 1991, due to arthritis in his left hip and pain
from having the hip replaced. An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied his
application, the Appeals Council denied review, and the denial was upheld upon
judicial review. Gibbs then filed a second application for benefits, once again
asserting the 1991 onset date. On May 28, 1997, an ALJ denied this second
application. The Appeals Council again denied review, and this court upheld the
denial. Gibbs v. Massanari, 21 F. App’x 813 (10th Cir. 2001).
Gibbs filed his third application for benefits in 2000, alleging a disability
onset date of December 8, 1999. In 2005, an ALJ found that Gibbs was disabled
only as of December 30, 2004. The Appeals Council denied review of this
decision. Gibbs subsequently filed a claim in district court alleging an earlier
onset date. Prior to filing an answer, the Commissioner informed the court that
he could not locate certain evidence relevant to Gibbs’ claims. Accordingly, the
district court remanded the case under sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)
(“Sentence Six Remand”) for further proceedings. On remand, the ALJ once
more found that Gibbs was disabled as of 2004. The district court reopened the
-2-
case in 2010, but found that certain evidence upon which the ALJ relied was
absent from the administrative record. On motion, the court reversed and
remanded under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to allow the Commissioner
to complete the administrative record.
II
The sole issue before us is whether the district court erred in ordering the
Sentence Four Remand. Under sentence four of § 405(g), “the court shall have
power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment
affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social
Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.” Gibbs has the
right to appeal the Sentence Four Remand under Forney v. Apfel. 524 U.S. 266,
269-71 (1998). In Forney, the Supreme Court held that remands under sentence
four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) are considered “final” judgments that may be
appealed. See id. at 269. Further, the Court held that a party can bring suit if an
outright award of benefits is requested but not granted. Thus, a party “can appeal
the District Court’s order insofar as it denies [him] the relief [he] has sought.” Id.
at 271.
We liberally construe Gibbs’ pro se filings. See Hall v. Witteman,
584 F.3d 859, 863 (10th Cir. 2009). There is a circuit split as to whether the
proper standard of review of a district court’s remand under sentence four of
§ 405(g) is de novo or for an abuse of discretion. See Butts v. Barnhart, 388 F.3d
-3-
377, 384-85 (2d Cir. 2004) (noting circuit split), amended by 416 F.3d 101(2d Cir. 2005). We need not resolve this question, however, because our decision
would be the same under either standard.
A
Gibbs’ first argument attacking the remand is grounded in what he
describes as a “fully favorable” administrative “decision” dated January 17, 1996.
According to Gibbs, this decision is conclusive evidence that his disability
manifested itself prior to 2004. Under this theory, the district court should have
deferred to the 1996 “decision” and awarded Gibbs the benefits he requested
despite the incomplete administrative record. Because he was allegedly entitled
to an outright award of benefits, Gibbs concludes that the Sentence Four Remand
was unnecessary and inappropriate.
Gibbs’ argument is without merit. The January 17, 1996, administrative
“decision” is, in reality, a single-page administrative form. Admin. R. at 300.
The form is entitled “Report of Contact,” and the “SUBJECT” part of the form it
states “This case is being cleared based on Commissioner King’s Disability
Initiatives.” Id. The form then has four descriptions that may be checked. The
last of these is checked and reads: “Fully favorable medical/vocational decision,
abbreviated PRTF, RFC and/or MRFC completed.” Id. The form is then signed
by someone at a “DISTRICT OFFICE” and dated January 17, 1996. Id. There is
no further description in the record identifying the origins of this document or the
-4-
individual who signed it. Nevertheless, Gibbs wishes to treat this form as a final
administrative decision in his favor.
The district court was not required to give this 1996 “decision” preclusive
effect because Gibbs was estopped from asserting that he was disabled as of 1996.
A May 28, 1997 ALJ decision considered—and denied—that Gibbs was disabled
from 1992 to 1997. This decision was upheld upon judicial review by both a
district court and this circuit. Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, factual
issues cannot be relitigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit
following a final judgment. United States v. Rogers, 960 F.2d 1501, 1508
(10th Cir. 1992). Because Gibbs previously had a chance to litigate the question
of his disability in 1996, and that question was fully adjudicated on the merits, he
is now foreclosed from reopening that issue. Lombard v. Axtens, 739 F.2d 499,
502 (10th Cir. 1984).
B
In his reply brief, Gibbs attacks the remand by asserting that the missing
evidence sought by the district court was either irrelevant or contained in the
record. Gibbs offers little support for these claims. More importantly, however,
Gibbs did not raise these arguments before the district court in opposing the
remand. In fact, his reasons for challenging the remand below are completely
unrelated to those he now presents. As a general rule, this court will not consider
arguments that were not raised before the district court. Tele-Commc’ns, Inc. v.
-5-
Comm’r, 104 F.3d 1229, 1232 (10th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we decline to
consider this challenge.
C
Gibbs further argues that the district court erred procedurally in entering
the remand order upon considering the Commissioner’s motion and Gibbs’
response. He specifically asserts that the court could not properly act until the
magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation on the remand motion. Yet
Gibbs offers no authority in support of such a requirement. Nor does he indicate
how this delay would have benefitted him, or what additional evidence he would
have presented. We thus find no basis for this claim.
D
Finally, Gibbs avers that the district court was biased and was motivated to
remand his case because of this bias. Gibbs’ bias claim is based on various
unfavorable rulings made by the district court judge. Our precedent, however,
clearly forecloses this argument. It is established that “[f]actors that do not merit
disqualification [of a judge] include: . . . prior rulings that were adverse to the
moving party . . . solely because they were adverse[.]” Estate of Bishop v.
Equinox Intern. Corp., 256 F.3d 1050, 1058 (10th Cir. 2001). Gibbs offers no
other substantial evidence of bias, and as such, we reject his claim.
-6-
III
Our conclusion that the district court did not err in reversing and remanding
the administrative decision renders the remaining issues raised by Gibbs moot. It
was proper to reverse the administrative decision, and as such, the district court’s
rulings related to that decision need not be considered
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
-7-