United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

In the

May 17, 2005

United States Court of Appeals

Charles R. Fulbruge III

for the Fifth Circuit Clerk

m 04-20107

KATHERINE E. HAMMOND,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

m H-02-CV-4171

On Petition for Rehearing In her petition for rehearing, Hammond

argues that Istre v. Apfel, 208 F.3d 517 (5th

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DEMOSS, Cir. 2000), stands for the proposition that the

Circuit Judges. good cause requirement applies only to cases

brought under sent ence (6) of § 405(g), in

PER CURIAM: which new evidence is presented for the first time in the district court. Although that IT IS ORDERED that the petition for re- happens to be the procedural posture of this hearing is DENIED. We do, however, elect to case, we do not read the important holding of comment on two points raised in the petition. the opinion in that way. Instead, Istre holds that there are no permissible bases for remand other than under sentences (4) and (6) of § 405(g). The district court did not remand here, so Istre is inapplicable. In other words, Istre concerned the circumstances under which a case may be remanded, not the circumstances under which it must be remanded.

Also in her petition for rehearing, Hammond argues that "new evidence submitted to the Appeals Council justifies reversal." Hammond indeed introduces evidence that would have been material, had the date of the hearing been later. We, however, cannot deem evidence material insofar as it details the alleged worsening of a claimant's condition after the date of the hearing. This is not to say that we cannot consider any evidence post-dating a hearing, but that medical evidence must shed light on the severit y of a claimant's medical condition before the hearing.