Eskew v. Astrue

Filing 89

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Sheila Finnegan on 10/12/2012: Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment 87 is denied for the reasons set forth in the Statement section of this Written Opinion. [For further details see minute order.] Mailed notice. (is, )

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

CASE NUMBER

Sheila Finnegan

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

08 C 1978

CASE
TITLE

10/12/2012

Debbie L. Eskew vs. Michael J. Astrue

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment [87] is denied for the reasons set forth in the
Statement section of this Written Opinion.

Mailed notice.

O[ For further details see text below.]

STATEMENT
A court may grant a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) “if the movant
presents newly discovered evidence that was not available at the time of trial or if the movant points
to evidence in the record that clearly establishes a manifest error of law or fact.” Miller v. Safeco Ins.
Co. of Am., 683 F.3d 805, 813 (7th Cir. 2012). Here, Plaintiff seeks to alter or amend this Court’s
September 20, 2012 Written Opinion denying her motion for attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access
to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). (Doc. 83). In that opinion, this Court found that the
Commissioner’s position in defending the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision was substantially
justified even though the Seventh Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court relied
on the Seventh Circuit’s own observation that “the question [wa]s close” as to whether the ALJ’s error
in assessing Plaintiff’s credibility was harmless. Eskew v. Astrue, 462 Fed. Appx. 613, 616 (7th Cir.
2011). “Just as strong language against the Commissioner’s position in an opinion is evidence that
a position was not substantially justified, . . . a court’s decision suggesting a close case supports the
denial of fees.” Grieves v. Astrue, 600 F. Supp. 2d 995, 1000 (N.D. Ill. 2009) (citing Cummings v.
Sullivan, 950 F.2d 492, 498 (7th Cir. 1991)).
Plaintiff argues that this Court “did not appreciate the gravamen of the Court of Appeals’ reasons
for remanding the case” and “cannot depend upon the statement that the case was close.” (Doc. 87
¶ 3). The Court has carefully reviewed the Seventh Circuit’s decision and remains satisfied that in this
“close” case, the Commissioner’s position in defending the ALJ’s decision was substantially justified.
Plaintiff has not demonstrated that this finding constitutes a manifest error of law or fact, and her
motion to alter or amend the judgment is denied.

08C1978 Debbie L. Eskew vs. Michael J. Astrue

Page 1 of 1