Kinder v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
24
OPINION AND ORDER: The Court hereby DENIES Defendant's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment [DE 22]. Signed by Judge Joseph S. Van Bokkelen on 11/25/2019. (rmf) Modified on 11/25/2019 to add text (rmf).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION AT LAFAYETTE
STANLEY R. KINDER,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO.: 4:16-CV-76-JVB-PRC
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment
[DE 22], filed by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration on October 5, 2018.
Plaintiff Stanley R. Kinder filed a response on October 19, 2018. No reply was filed.
In the motion, the Commissioner asks the Court to alter the Judgment entered on September
27, 2018, and to affirm the Commissioner’s decision to deny Plaintiff’s applications for disability
insurance benefits and supplemental security income.
The Commissioner’s request is brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Relief
is available under Rule 59(e) “only where the movant clearly establishes: ‘(1) that the court
committed a manifest error of law or fact, or (2) that newly discovered evidence precluded entry
of judgment.’” Cincinnati Life Ins. Co. v. Beyrer, 722 F.3d 939, 954 (7th Cir. 2013) (quoting Blue
v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 698 F.3d 587, 598 (7th Cir. 2012)). A motion to reconsider
“is not an appropriate forum for rehashing previously rejected arguments or arguing matters that
could have been heard during the pendency of the previous motion.” Caisse Nationale De Credit
Agricole v. CBI Indus., Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1269-70 (7th Cir. 1996).
The Commissioner asserts that the Court, in its Opinion and Order reversing the
Commissioner’s decision, did not address the Commissioner’s argument regarding the opinion of
reviewing cardiologist Dr. Wenzler.
The Court reversed the Commissioner’s decision and remanded this matter for further
proceedings on the basis that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) did not properly weigh the
opinion of Dr. Joyce Hubbard, Plaintiff’s treating physician. (Op. & Order 5, ECF No. 20). The
Court determined that the ALJ’s stated reasons for not assigning controlling weight under the
treating physician rule were insufficient. As the Court recounted in its order, the ALJ’s reasons
were that Dr. Hubbard’s findings were unsupported by her previous treatment records and that the
findings of consultative examining physician Dr. Stuart Knapp did not support Dr. Hubbard’s
opinion. The Court found that neither Dr. Hubbard’s previous records nor the findings of Dr.
Knapp were inconsistent with Dr. Hubbard’s opinion.
The Court, having found that these reasons did not support the ALJ’s decision to not apply
the treating physician rule, determined that reversal and remand were necessary. Because the
treating physician rule, if it applies, would mandate assignment of controlling weight to Dr.
Hubbard’s opinion, it was unnecessary for the Court to determine if other aspects of the record,
including Dr. Wenzler’s opinion, supported the ALJ’s decision.
Nothing in the Commissioner’s motion to reconsider argues that the Court committed a
manifest error of fact or law in determining that the ALJ erred in applying the treating physician
rule. Instead, the Commissioner assets that the Court did not address a matter that the
Commissioner raised in the response brief on the merits. The Court did not address that matter
because the ALJ mistaken analysis regarding the treating physician rule is outcome determinative.
2
On this issue, the Court has only found that the stated reasons for not giving the treating
physician controlling weight do not support the conclusion. The Court makes no finding as to
whether the treating physician rule should have applied or whether the ALJ could have properly
decided to not apply the rule and to adopt the opinion of Dr. Wenzler over that of Dr. Hubbard.
The Commissioner appears to argue that the Court should take up those matters here. However,
the weighing of opinions is left to the ALJ. The question for the Court to resolve was whether the
ALJ “uses the correct legal standards and the decision is supported by substantial evidence.”
Summers v. Berryhill, 864 F.3d 523, 526 (7th Cir. 2017); 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Court determined
that the ALJ improperly applied the treating physician rule and that the evidence cited by the ALJ
did not support his decision, so the Court reversed on that basis. The Commissioner has not shown
that reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is proper.
Therefore, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment
[DE 22].
SO ORDERED on November 25, 2019.
s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?