Vicki L. Gehron v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 08-4894
_____________
VICKI L. GEHRON,
Appellant
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security;
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 08-cv-0822)
District Judge: Honorable Malcolm Muir
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
September 8, 2009
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, RENDELL and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: September 14, 2009)
OPINION OF THE COURT
RENDELL, Circuit Judge.
Vicki Gehron appeals the order of the District Court affirming the Administrative
Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) denial of her application for disability benefits under 42 U.S.C. §§

-- 1 of 3 --

The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Our1
jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review an ALJ’s findings of fact for
substantial evidence. Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422, 427 (3d Cir. 1999); see 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g).
2
1318-1383. Gehron suffers from migraine headaches, degenerative disc disease of the1
cervical spine, and fibromyalgia/myofascial pain; her migraine headaches have
progressively worsened over the past few years.
As noted by the District Court, most of the medical evidence in the record relates
to Gehron’s condition after December 31, 2002, her last insured date and the relevant date
for purposes of disability. The only evidence provided to us that speaks directly to her
disability as of that date is a report prepared by Gehron’s treating physician, Dr. Bryan
O’Neill, in January 2007–after the date of Gehron’s hearing before the ALJ. It was not
part of the record before the ALJ, and Gehron has not established good cause for her
tardy submission of the report, which could have been prepared prior to the hearing.
Accordingly, that report is not properly before us and should not have been considered by
the District Court. See Matthews v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 589, 594-95 (3d Cir. 2001) (deeming
inadmissable a report submitted after the date of the hearing before the ALJ, where the
claimant failed to demonstrate that timely submission of the report would have been
impossible).
We have carefully reviewed the complete administrative record and the arguments
and authorities presented by the parties. We conclude that substantial evidence supports

-- 2 of 3 --

3
the ALJ’s determination that Gehron was not disabled on or before December 31, 2002.
Therefore, we will AFFIRM the order of the District Court.

-- 3 of 3 --