Flores v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 25

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 3/14/17 ORDERING that plaintiff's 22 motion to alter or amend the judgment is DENIED. No further motions for reconsideration will be entertained in this closed case. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PIXIE MECHELLE MARIE FLORES

12
13
14
15

No. 2:15-cv-2676-KJN

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.

16
17
18

INTRODUCTION

19

On December 28, 2016, this court affirmed the final decision of the Commissioner of

20

Social Security denying plaintiff’s application for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI), and

21

entered judgment for the Commissioner. (ECF Nos. 20, 21.) Thereafter, on January 12, 2017,

22

plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment. (ECF No. 22.) The Commissioner has

23

opposed the motion. (ECF No. 24.) For the reasons discussed below, the court DENIES the

24

motion.

25

DISCUSSION

26

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 allows a party to move to alter or amend a judgment

27

within 28 days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). “There are four grounds upon

28

which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted: 1) the motion is necessary to correct manifest errors
1

1

of law or fact upon which the judgment is based; 2) the moving party presents newly discovered

2

or previously unavailable evidence; 3) the motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or 4)

3

there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co.,

4

338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation and quotation marks omitted). “While Rule 59(e)

5

permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous order, the rule offers an extraordinary

6

remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.”

7

Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

8
9

According to plaintiff, non-examining state agency physician Dr. Balson restricted
plaintiff to carrying out one- to two step instructions, and although the ALJ purportedly gave

10

substantial weight to Dr. Balson’s opinion, the ALJ erroneously failed to incorporate that specific

11

limitation into the RFC or explain why that limitation was not adopted. For the reasons discussed

12

in detail in the court’s December 28, 2016 decision, the court found that Dr. Balson’s opinion was

13

ambiguous, and deferred to the ALJ’s interpretation of the opinion that plaintiff could perform

14

simple, routine, and repetitive tasks.

15

In the present motion, plaintiff suggests that the court improperly affirmed the ALJ’s

16

decision on a basis not articulated by the ALJ, because the ALJ’s decision, unlike the court’s

17

order, never explicitly recognized an ambiguity in Dr. Balson’s opinion. That argument lacks

18

merit. Whether or not plaintiff and the court could discern a potential ambiguity, the ALJ’s

19

interpretation of Dr. Balson’s decision here was reasonable, rational, and consistent with the

20

opinion of the consultative examiner, the minimal evidence of any mental health treatment,

21

plaintiff’s work history, and plaintiff’s own testimony, as discussed in the court’s prior order.

22

Importantly, by simply noting a potential ambiguity in Dr. Balson’s opinion, but nonetheless

23

deferring to the ALJ’s reasonable interpretation, the court did not somehow rely on an

24

independent ground not supported by the ALJ’s decision.

25

Plaintiff also appears to argue that Dr. Balson’s opinion is not actually ambiguous, but

26

definitively restricted plaintiff to carrying out one- to two step instructions. For the reasons

27

discussed in the court’s prior order, the court disagrees. Plaintiff’s argument fails to consider Dr.

28

Balson’s opinion as a whole, and isolates certain portions of the opinion while ignoring others,
2

1

such as the portions where Dr. Balson specifically agreed with the consultative examiner Dr.

2

Fang’s assessment and recommended limiting plaintiff merely to unskilled work. (AT 81-82, 86-

3

87.)

4

In sum, plaintiff’s motion fails to demonstrate that the judgment was based on a manifest

5

error of law or fact, or that it will result in manifest injustice.

6

CONCLUSION

7
8
9
10
11

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend the judgment is DENIED. No further
motions for reconsideration will be entertained in this closed case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
This order resolves ECF No. 22.
Dated: March 14, 2017

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3