Lloyd v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 25

ORDER denying 24 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 11/21/2017.(DGC, nvo)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Kelly Lloyd, No. CV-17-00099-PHX-DGC Plaintiff, 10 11 v. 12 ORDER Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 Defendant Commissioner moves for reconsideration of this Court’s order vacating 17 and remanding the Commissioner’s decision. Doc. 24. A motion for reconsideration will 18 be denied “absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal 19 authority that could not have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with 20 reasonable diligence.” LRCiv 7.2(g)(1); see Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th 21 Cir. 2003). 22 Defendant objects to the Court’s finding of legal error in the residual functional 23 capacity (“RFC”) assessment by the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). Doc. 24 at 2-7. 24 Defendant mistakenly assumes that the Court held that Plaintiff Kelly Lloyd’s mild 25 mental impairments must be reflected in the RFC. Doc. 24. The Court did not reach this 26 conclusion. Relying on statutory and Ninth Circuit law, the Court noted that “the ALJ 27 must consider the combined effects of all impairments, both severe and non-severe.” 28 Doc. 22 at 5 (emphasis added). Yet the ALJ’s RFC analysis did not address Plaintiff’s 1 mild mental impairments; it “addresse[d] only Plaintiff’s physical impairments and the 2 credibility of her symptom testimony.” Doc. 22 at 5. Because the ALJ’s opinion did not 3 consider the mild mental impairments in its RFC analysis, the ALJ committed legal error. 4 Id. The ALJ can correct this error by discussing Plaintiff’s mild mental impairments in 5 the process of arriving at the RFC assessment. 6 Defendant’s harmless error argument is not persuasive. Defendant argues that 7 Plaintiff could perform unskilled work with mild mental impairments. Doc. 24 at 7. But 8 “the vocational expert testified that mental impairments might preclude some or all 9 work.” Doc. 22 at 6. The Court cannot “conclude from the record that the ALJ would 10 have reached the same result absent the error.” Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1115 11 (9th Cir. 2012). The motion will be denied. 12 IT IS ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration (Doc. 24) is denied. 13 Dated this 21st day of November, 2017. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?