Anderson v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
42
OPINION entered by U.S. Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins. Plaintiff John Anderson's Motion for Reconsideration and Brief in Support 41 is DENIED. See written order. THIS CASE IS CLOSED. (LB, ilcd)
E-FILED
Friday, 03 March, 2017 11:46:45 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
JOHN E. ANDERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 16-cv-3017
OPINION
TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff John Anderson’s
Motion for Reconsideration and Brief in Support (d/e 41) (Motion). The
parties consented, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), to proceed before this
Court. Consent to the Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United States
Magistrate Judge and Reference Order, entered June 29, 2016 (d/e 13).
For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is DENIED.
To prevail on the Motion, Anderson must clearly establish the
existence of a manifest error of law or fact, or must present newly
discovered evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); Blue v. Hartford Life & Acc.
Ins. Co., 698 F.3d 587, 598 (7th Cir. 2012); see Caisse Nationale de Credit
Agricole v. CBI Industries, Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1269 (7th Cir. 1996).
Page 1 of 3
The Court has carefully reviewed the Motion and determines that
Anderson does not present any manifest errors of law. Anderson restates
some of the arguments he made originally and argues with parts of the
Court’s ruling, but cites no errors of law.
Anderson argues that the Commissioner’s memorandum contained
alterations and fabrication. The Court disagrees. Counsel for the
Commissioner argued from the evidence. The argument was not a
fabrication or alteration. The Court further was not misled by the argument.
Anderson presents an affidavit from George Tinkham verifying that
Anderson’s statement recorded in his medical records that he took a 36hour trip to pick up a motorcycle did not mean that Anderson rode a
motorcycle for 36 hours; rather, Anderson rode in the passenger seat of a
pick-up truck for 36 hours during this trip to pick up a motorcycle.
Anderson fails to demonstrate that this affidavit contains new evidence.
New evidence means evidence that could not have been produced at the
evidentiary hearing. Anderson does not explain why he could not have
produced the affidavit at the hearing. See Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d
489, 494 (7th Cir. 2008) (Rule 59(e) motion “cannot be used to present
evidence that could have been presented before judgment was entered.”).
Page 2 of 3
Furthermore, Anderson fails to show how the affidavit would change
the outcome. See Cincinnati Life Ins. Co. v. Beyrer, 772 F.3d 939, 955 (7th
Cir. 2013) (The evidence must be “such that a new trial would probably
produce a new result.”). The Court agreed with Anderson that the medical
records did not state that he rode a motorcycle for 36 hours. Opinion
entered February 8, 2017 (d/e 39), at 32. Because the Court agreed that
the Administrative Law Judge misread the medical records on this point,
the affidavit would not have changed the outcome.
THEREFORE, Plaintiff John Anderson’s Motion for Reconsideration
and Brief in Support (d/e 41) is DENIED. THIS CASE IS CLOSED.
ENTER: March 3, 2017
s/ Tom Schanzle-Haskins
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 3 of 3
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?