Kersey v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 23

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 5/14/2010 DENYING 20 Motion to Amend the Judgment. (Engbretson, K.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Defendant moves to amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Defendant contends the court failed to properly apply the Social Security Administration's Hearings, Appeals and Litigation Law Manual (HALLEX) section II-5-3-2. The court did not require an explanation of how plaintiff's borderline age factored into the disability determination. This matter was remanded solely because the court found no evidence in the record that the ALJ even considered plaintiff's borderline age situation in conjunction with the additional vocational adversity apparent in the record. There being no manifest error of law, the motion to amend the judgment (docket no. 20) is denied. DATED: May 14, 2010.
006 kersey.ss.59

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JOEL KERSEY, Plaintiff, vs. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. / ORDER No. CIV S-09-975 KJM

1