Nancy Artache v. Commissioner of Social Security

USCA11 Case: 25-11005 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 02/23/2026 Page: 1 of 7

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-11005 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ NANCY ARTACHE, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant- Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:23-cv-02145-TGW ____________________ Before LAGOA, BRASHER, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Nancy Artache appeals the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s (“Com- missioner”) denial of her claim for disability benefits for the period USCA11 Case: 25-11005 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 02/23/2026 Page: 2 of 7

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Artache applied for disability benefits in early 2019 and claimed that she was disabled as of June 6, 2016. Artache alleges that she was disabled due to a bulging disc in her back, arthritis in her arms and fingers, high blood pressure, depression, and a stom- ach issue.

The Social Security Administration denied her application on May 28, 2019. Upon reconsideration, the agency denied her ap- plication on July 23, 2019. On July 29, 2020, an ALJ issued a written decision finding that Artache was not disabled from June 6, 2016, through July 29, 2020. The Social Security Appeals Council af- firmed the ALJ’s decision. On December 21, 2020, Artache filed a complaint for judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

On December 22, 2020, and pending judicial review of her original claim, Artache filed a subsequent claim for disability bene- fits. Based on this application, the Social Security Administration determined that Artache was disabled as of July 30, 2020—one day after the period for which the ALJ denied Artache’s original claim.

In January 2022, upon an unopposed motion to remand for further consideration of the evidence, the District Court for the Middle District of Florida remanded Artache’s original claim to the USCA11 Case: 25-11005 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 02/23/2026 Page: 3 of 7

25-11005 Opinion of the Court 3 Commissioner. The Social Security Appeals Council vacated the ALJ’s decision on the claim and remanded it for reconsideration of the evidence. At the hearing on remand, Artache did not provide additional evidence to support her claim. After reviewing the same evidence as the original record, the ALJ issued a written decision, once again concluding that Artache was not disabled from June 6, 2016, through July 29, 2020. The Social Security Appeals Council declined to exercise jurisdiction over the case. Thus, the ALJ’s de- cision is the final decision of the Commissioner. 1 On September 22, 2023, Artache returned to federal court and filed a complaint for judicial review of the Commissioner’s fi- nal decision arguing that the ALJ erred in denying her claim with- out considering the decision and records from her subsequent claim.

The district court affirmed the Commissioner’s decision and determined that the ALJ did not have a duty to obtain addi- tional medical evidence not presented and that a subsequent favor- able decision does not undermine the validity of a previous unfa- vorable decision or the facts upon which it was based.

Artache filed the present appeal.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review de novo the Commissioner’s legal conclusions and the district court’s decision about whether the Commissioner’s

USCA11 Case: 25-11005 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 02/23/2026 Page: 4 of 7

III. ANALYSIS On appeal, Artache argues that the ALJ was required to con- sider medical records and opinion evidence from her subsequent claim file, wherein she was determined to be disabled starting July 30, 2020, one day after the ALJ’s decision on her original claim.

Artache also contends that her claim should be remanded to the Commissioner for the ALJ to consider this evidence.

We will remand a Social Security appeal only for the reasons found in the fourth and sixth sentences of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Jack- son v. Chater, 99 F.3d 1086, 1091-92 (11th Cir. 1996); see 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3) (applying § 405(g) judicial review to denial of Social Se- curity claims). To remand under sentence four, we “must either find that the [ALJ’s] decision is not supported by substantial evi- dence, or that the Commissioner (or the ALJ) incorrectly applied the law relevant to the disability claim.” Jackson, 99 F.3d at 1092; 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Under sentence six, “[we] may … remand the case to the Commissioner … for further action … only 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,” which the Commissioner must then consider on remand. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Thus, in order to be enti- tled to a sentence-six remand, “the claimant must establish that: (1) there is new, noncumulative evidence; (2) the evidence is material, that is, relevant and probative so that there is a reasonable USCA11 Case: 25-11005 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 02/23/2026 Page: 5 of 7

25-11005 Opinion of the Court 5 possibility that it would change the administrative result, and (3) there is good cause for the failure to submit the evidence at the administrative level.” Caulder v. Bowen, 791 F.2d 872, 877 (11th Cir. 1986) (citation modified).

As an initial matter, remand under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is unavailable because Artache does not argue that the ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence; indeed, she does not challenge any specific ALJ finding. We thus can re- mand only to the Commissioner under sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014) (holding that arguments not briefed are aban- doned).

As to remand under sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Artache fares no better. For the first prong of sentence-six remand, Artache argues that a finding of disability on a subsequent claim with an onset date one day after a decision on an original claim is a per se reason to remand the denial of the original claim.

But Artache’s argument contradicts our Circuit precedent.

In Hunter v. Soc. Sec. Admin., we held that a subsequent determina- tion that the claimant was entitled to Social Security benefits for a later period was not itself new and material evidence that warrants remand of a prior denial of such benefits. 808 F.3d 818, 822 (11th Cir. 2015). Rejecting a Ninth Circuit case holding the contrary, we held that a subsequent ALJ decision is not relevant evidence to whether substantial evidence supported an earlier ALJ decision. Id. We thus concluded that the existence of a subsequent favorable USCA11 Case: 25-11005 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 02/23/2026 Page: 6 of 7

Here, Artache’s reliance on her subsequent claim to support remand of her original claim is misplaced. As we held in Hunter, the mere existence of Artache’s subsequent and favorable claim, despite the temporal proximity to the original determination, is not new evidence that warrants remand. Though Artache argues that it is not the subsequent decision but the evidence in the subsequent file that is new, she did not object to the evidence before the ALJ at the hearing, nor did she provide any additional evidence of what the subsequent file contained. As such, Artache has not established that there is new, non-cumulative evidence.

For the second prong of sentence-six remand, Artache ar- gues that because the ALJ was aware that a favorable decision was made in the second claim, and that there were purportedly opin- ions from other doctors in the subsequent claim file, the ALJ was obligated to consider them.

But Artache does not argue or provide any evidence to show that the contents of the subsequent claim file are material to the ALJ’s decision regarding the period between June 16, 2016, and July 29, 2020. Instead, the contents of the subsequent claim file USCA11 Case: 25-11005 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 02/23/2026 Page: 7 of 7

25-11005 Opinion of the Court 7 presumably would relate to the subsequent claim—a claim of disa- bility with an onset date of July 30, 2020. Because we review the ALJ’s decision as to whether a claimant was entitled to benefits for the period before the ALJ’s decision, newly presented evidence will be irrelevant unless it applies to that same period. Wilson v. Apfel, 179 F.3d 1276, 1279 (11th Cir. 1999).

For the third prong of sentence-six remand, Artache argues that the records from her subsequent claim were in the exclusive possession of the Commissioner, meaning that the ALJ should have considered them, and that she was not obligated to produce them.

But Artache fails to mention that the regulations explicitly entitle claimants to obtain any of their records from the Social Se- curity Administration. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 401.35-401.55. In addition, Artache never asserts that she tried, but failed, to obtain the perti- nent records. Artache, thus, has no reasonable excuse for failing to provide the allegedly pertinent records at the administrative level.

IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed, we conclude that the district court did not err when it affirmed the Commissioner’s denial of Artache’s claim for disability benefits.

AFFIRMED.