Finally, the ALJ properly took into account evidence that Favors could hold jobs that involved limited interactions with others, such as laundry worker, agricultural sorter, and cleaner housekeeper. (PBr. at 22; R. 16-17, 86-88, 103).See Anderson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 07-1680, 2008 WL 619209, at *9 (D.N.J. Mar. 4, 2008) (finding ALJ's decision supported by substantial evidence which accounted for plaintiff's ability to handle limited social interactions where a vocational expert identified work in which working with people is "not significant"). Favors does not present any substantive argument that these identified jobs, which would involve limited social contact, fail to accommodate her limitations as to interaction with others.
Matthews, 239 F.3d at 595. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a new evidence remand is warranted. While all of the records submitted to the Appeals Council are "new" in the sense that they post-date the ALJ's decision, these records are immaterial since they do not relate to the time period for which benefits were denied. See e.g., Harkins v. Astrue, 2011 WL 778403 at *1 n.1 (W.D.Pa. 2011) (holding that a new evidence remand was not warranted where records dated one month after ALJ's decision did not expressly relate back to the relevant period); Range v. Astrue, 2009 WL 3448746 at *8 (W.D.Pa. 2009) (records that post-date the ALJ's decision are immaterial since they do not relate to the time period for which benefits were denied); Anderson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 2008 WL 619209 at *12 (D.N.J. 2008) (claimant not entitled to remand where records were dated after ALJ's decision); Wilson v. Halter, 2001 WL 410542 (E.D.Pa. 2001) (medical reports relating to period of time after that addressed in the hearing are immaterial to the ALJ's decision and therefore do not warrant remand), aff'd, 27 Fed. Appx. 136 (3d Cir. 2002). Dr. Prabhu's psychiatric evaluation dated October 2, 2010 occurred six months after the ALJ's decision, and Dr. Ghearing's opinion relative to the Plaintiff's disability is dated October 24, 2011, approximately one and one-half years after the ALJ's decision in this case.
Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause for not presenting this evidence to the ALJ for consideration. With respect to the Safe Harbor treatment note entries of Dr. Eberly dated July 2, 2010 through April 20, 2011 [ECF No. 6-1] pp. 5-20, although these records are "new" in the sense that they were not generated until after the decision of the ALJ dated June 4, 2010, they are immaterial since they do not relate to the time period for which benefits were denied. See e.g., Harkins v. Astrue, 2011 WL 778403 at *1 n.1 (W.D.Pa. 2011) (holding that a new evidence remand was not warranted where records dated one month after ALJ's decision did not expressly relate back to relevant period); Range v. Astrue, 2009 WL 3448746 at *8 (W.D.Pa. 2009) (records that post-date the ALJ's decision are immaterial since they do not relate to the time period for which benefits were denied); Anderson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 2008 WL 619209 at *12 (D.N.J. 2008) (claimant not entitled to remand where records were dated after ALJ's decision). We conclude that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a new evidence remand is warranted with respect to either group of records.
Id. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a new evidence remand is warranted. While the records from Plaintiff's emergency room visit on September 30, 2009, his MRI dated October 9, 2009, the treatment notes from Dr. Helgert dated November 23, 2009 and February 22, 2010, and Dr. Macielak's opinion dated December 5, 2009 are "new" in the sense that they post-date the ALJ's decision, these records are immaterial since they do not relate to the time period for which benefits were denied. See e.g., Harkins v. Astrue, 2011 WL 778403 at *1 n. 1 (W.D.Pa. 2011) (holding that a new evidence remand was not warranted where records dated one month after ALJ's decision did not expressly relate back to the relevant period); Range v. Astrue, 2009 WL 3448746 at *8 (W.D.Pa. 2009) (records that post-date the ALJ's decision are immaterial since they do not relate to the time period for which benefits were denied); Anderson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 2008 WL 619209 at *12 (D.N.J. 2008) (claimant not entitled to remand where records were dated after ALJ's decision); Wilson v. Halter, 2001 WL 410542 (E.D.Pa. 2001) (medical reports relating to period of time after that addressed in the hearing are immaterial to the ALJ's decision and therefore do not warrant remand), aff'd, 27 Fed. Appx. 136 (3rd Cir. 2002). In addition, the records relative to Plaintiff's back impairment are merely cumulative of the evidence that was before the ALJ.
Id. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a new evidence remand is warranted. While the evidence submitted by Plaintiff is "new" in the sense that it was not generated until after the decision of the ALJ dated June 5, 2009, these records are immaterial since they do not relate to the time period for which benefits were denied. See e.g., Harkins v. Astrue, 2011 WL 778403 at *1 n. 1 (W.D.Pa. 2011) (holding that a new evidence remand was not warranted where records dated one month after ALJ's decision did not expressly relate back to the relevant period); Range v. Astrue, 2009 WL 3448746 at *8 (W.D.Pa. 2009) (records that post-date the ALJ's decision are immaterial since they do not relate to the time period for which benefits were denied); Anderson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 2008 WL 619209 at *12 (D.N.J. 2008) (claimant not entitled to remand where records were dated after ALJ's decision); Wilson v. Halter, 2001 WL 410542 (E.D.Pa. 2001) (medical reports relating to period of time after that addressed in the hearing are immaterial to the ALJ's decision and therefore do not warrant remand), aff'd, 27 Fed. Appx. 136 (3rd Cir. 2002). Accordingly, I direct my attention to Plaintiff's arguments relative to the evidence that was before the ALJ.
Finally, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause for not presenting this evidence to the ALJ for consideration. Matthews, 239 F.3d at 593. With respect to the evidence which post-dates the ALJ's decision of February 14, 2006, these records are also immaterial since they do not relate to the time period for which benefits were denied. See e.g., Anderson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 2008 WL 619209 at *12 (D.N.J. 2008) (claimant not entitled to remand where records were dated after the ALJ's decision); Wilson v. Halter, 2001 WL 410542 (E.D.Pa. 2001) (medical reports relating to period of time after that addressed in the hearing are immaterial to the ALJ's decision and therefore do not warrant remand), aff'd in an unpublished opinion, 27 Fed. Appx. 136 (3rd Cir. 2002); Ordo v. Apfel, 2001 WL 1159856 (E.D.Pa. 2001) (remand not appropriate since new evidence did not relate back to time period for which benefits were denied), aff'd without opinion, 48 Fed. Appx. 41 (3rd Cir. 2002). For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff's request for a remand is denied.