Dorsey v. Social Security Administration
Filing
20
ORDER AND REASONS DENYING 19 Motion for Reconsideration, as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 6/10/2019. (jls)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
WILSON DORSEY JR.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 17-9862
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
SECTION: “B”(3)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the court is plaintiff Wilson Dorsey, Jr.’s motion for
reconsideration of a judgment in favor of defendant Social Security
Administration that dismissed plaintiff’s claims. See Rec. Docs.
14, 17, 18, 19. Defendant did not file a response. For the reasons
discussed below,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The facts of plaintiff’s underlying case are discussed in
greater detail in this Court’s Order and Reasons adopting the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation to grant defendant’s
cross-motion for summary judgment and dismiss plaintiff’s claims.
See Rec. Docs. 14, 17. The facts are summarized here briefly. On
April 13, 2011, plaintiff Wilson Dorsey, Jr. was determined to be
disabled
by
Administrative
Law
Judge
Voisin
for
the
severe
impairments of disorders of the back and hypertension beginning on
August 10, 2010. Rec. Doc. 8-2 at 15. On September 15, 2016,
Administrative Law Judge Henderson decided that plaintiff was no
1
longer disabled as of June 11, 2014. Rec. Doc. 8-2 at 20. After
the Appeals Council denied plaintiff’s request to reconsider ALJ
Henderson’s decision, plaintiff filed the instant civil action.
Rec. Doc. 8-2 at 2. Plaintiff and defendant subsequently filed
cross motions for summary judgment, and the magistrate judge issued
a report and recommendation to deny plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment and grant defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment.
Rec. Doc. 14. On January 30, 2019, we adopted the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation, and entered judgment in favor
of defendant, dismissing plaintiff’s claims. Rec. Docs. 17, 18.
Plaintiff seeks reconsideration based on recent administrative
findings, an alleged error in law, and requests reversal of the
Commissioner’s
final
decision
with
a
remand
for
a
de
novo
administrative hearing. Rec. Doc. 19.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
A Rule 59(e) motion calls into question the correctness of a
judgment. In re Transtexas Gas Corp., 303 F.3d 571, 581 (5th Cir.
2002). Rule 59(e) serves “the narrow purpose of allowing a party
to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly
discovered evidence.” Basinkeeper v. Bostick, 663 F. App'x 291,
294 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting Waltman v. Int'l Paper Co., 875 F.2d
468, 473 (5th Cir. 1989)). Amending a judgment is appropriate under
Rule 59(e): “(1) where there has been an intervening change in the
controlling law; (2) where the movant presents newly discovered
2
evidence that was previously unavailable; or (3) to correct a
manifest error of law or fact.” Berezowsky v. Rendon Ojeda, 652 F.
App'x 249, 251 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting Demahy v. Schwarz Pharma,
Inc., 702 F.3d 177, 182 (5th Cir. 2012)). Because Rule 59(e) has
a
“narrow
purpose,”
the
Fifth
Circuit
has
“observed
that
[r]econsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary
remedy that should be used sparingly.” Id. (quoting Templet v.
HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004)). Thus, “a motion
for
reconsideration
is
not
the
proper
vehicle
for
rehashing
evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been offered
or raised before the entry of judgment.” Id. (quoting Templet, 367
F.3d at 479).
Recent Finding of Disability Since September 16, 2016
Administrative Law Judge Nancy Pizzo’s determination that
plaintiff was disabled since September 16, 2016 does not impact
the
judgment
upholding
ALJ
Henderson’s
previous
finding
that
plaintiff was no longer disabled as of June 11, 2014. In reviewing
a disability claim, a district Court is limited to determining
whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the
final decision of the Commissioner as trier of fact, and whether
the
Commissioner
applied
the
appropriate
legal
standards
to
evaluate the evidence. Carey v. Apfel, 230 F.3d 131 (5th Cir. 2000)
(citing Brown v. Apfel, 192 F.3d 492, 496 (5th Cir. 1999)). If the
3
Court finds substantial evidence to support the decision, then it
must uphold the decision.
In the order and reasons at issue, consideration was given to
ALJ
Henderson’s
determination
that
plaintiff’s
condition
had
improved as of June 11, 2014 and he was no longer deemed disabled
on that date. There was substantial evidence in the record to
support that decision for the noted time period. Rec. Doc. 17.
Consequently,
ALJ
Henderson’s
decision
was
upheld.
Plaintiff
asserts that ALJ Pizzo’s February 20, 2019 decision that plaintiff
has
been
disabled
since
September
20,
2016
is
the
type
of
previously unavailable evidence that warrants reconsideration of
the previous order and reasons. We welcome the invitation to review
that decision in relevant context.
ALJ Pizzo’s decision found that a state agency denial of
plaintiff’s claim on December 5, 2017 was consistent with the
medical record at the time of that denial.
However, following a
December 3, 2018 video hearing, ALJ Pizzo eventually found that
additional
evidence
indicates
changes
in
plaintiff’s
spine
condition, rendering the state agency’s denial unpersuasive. Based
on those findings, plaintiff was found disabled since September
16, 2016, the amended onset date of disability. See Rec. Doc. 193, pgs. 5-8.
Contrary to plaintiff’s argument, ALJ Pizzo’s decision had an
expressed application from September 16, 2016 onwards. Absent from
4
the decision is a finding of disability implicating an earlier
onset date of June 11, 2014 or a date prior to September 16, 2016.
The evidence suggested by plaintiff is temporally irrelevant or,
at best, not determinative of findings at issue.
It does not alter
the existence of substantial evidence in the record to support ALJ
Henderson’s determination that plaintiff was no longer disabled as
of June 11, 2014.
In summary, a finding of disability as of September 16, 2016
does not mean that plaintiff was also disabled as of June 11, 2014,
or
that
ALJ
Henderson’s
determination
was
not
supported
by
substantial evidence in the record. While tempting to do so in
this limited context, we cannot substitute the instant judgment
with the most recent ALJ decision that fixed a new disability onset
date after the earlier claimed onset date at issue. Further, there
is no demonstrated conflict between the ALJ decisions because each
dealt with a specific time frame of claimed disability onset, over
two years apart, and with materially different factual records.
No Manifest Error of Law
In the previous order and reasons, the ALJ’s decision was
reviewed under the appropriate analysis applicable to cessation of
disability claims. Plaintiff asserts an incorrect application of
the five-step analysis commonly used in Social Security claims to
determine whether a claimant is disabled, rather than the eightstep analysis to determine whether an individual continues to be
5
disabled. Rec. Doc. 19-2 at 4-5. While the order and reasons and
the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation described the
five-steps used to determine whether a claimant is disabled, some
of which are also part of the eight-step analysis applicable here,
neither the order nor the Magistrate Judge’s report applied the
five-step sequential analysis to the facts of this case. Rec. Docs.
14, 17. Rather, the order and reasons and the Magistrate Judge’s
report reviewed whether ALJ Henderson’s finding that plaintiff’s
disability had ended was supported by substantive evidence at the
relevant time period. Rec. Doc. 8-2 at 15-25.
Specifically,
the
arguments,
facts
and
law
presented
in
plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and defendant’s crossmotion
for
summary
judgment
were
considered
along
with
the
administrative record. That consideration included whether the ALJ
properly found that plaintiff’s condition did not meet the required
criteria for Listing 1.04A addressing disorders of the spine,
whether
the
ALJ
properly
found
that
plaintiff
had
medically
improved, and the impact of the ALJ’s misattribution of a nurse
practitioner’s medical note to a doctor. Rec. Docs. 10, 13. The
Court
did
not,
as
plaintiff
suggests,
apply
the
five-step
sequential analysis for ultimately determining whether claimant
has a disability to the facts of this case. Rec. Doc. 17 at 5. The
matters explicitly considered in the order and report at issue,
e.g. whether plaintiff had medically improved, are part of the
6
eight-step analysis plaintiff incorrectly avers were not applied.
Rec. Doc. 17 at 6-9. The five-step framework was neither applied
nor
determinative
in
the
analysis
of
plaintiff’s
disability
claims.
Additionally, there is no manifest error of law in upholding
ALJ Henderson’s decision, despite his misattribution of Nurse
Practitioner Lawson-Baker’s statements to Dr. Ellis. While the
Nurse Practitioner was not an acceptable medical source, the ALJ
was nevertheless entitled to consider evidence from lay sources
that was probative of plaintiff’s ability to function at that time
pursuant to Fifth Circuit law. Rec. Doc. 17 at 7; Rec. Doc. 14 at
7.
Furthermore, because other substantial evidence in the record
supported ALJ Henderson’s determination that plaintiff’s medical
condition had improved, we affirmed the Magistrate Judge’s finding
that “remanding this administrative decision for correction of a
typographic error would be an exercise in futility and would not
change the outcome of the ALJ’s conclusion and would therefore
serve no useful purpose.” Rec. Doc. 14 at 8.
There has been no impermissible reweighing of the evidence in
the record. We did not substitute our judgment for the Commissioner
as plaintiff claims. Rec. Doc. 19-2 at 6. There was no new analysis
of the evidence in the record to determine plaintiff’s disability.
7
As the opinions show, only record evidence was considered
upon which ALJ Henderson relied in reaching his determination,
including record evidence that plaintiff cited in opposition. The
ALJ’s ultimate conclusion was supported by substantial evidence of
record.
Therefore, there was no manifest error of law in upholding
ALJ
Henderson’s
decision.
Moreover,
remanding
for
further
administrative review based on a misattribution error would not
serve
a
useful
purpose,
especially
where
other
relevant
substantial evidence in the existing record supports the agency’s
decision.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 10th day of June 2019
___________________________________
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8
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?