SOBOLESKI v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

Filing 24

OPINION FILED. Signed by Judge Robert B. Kugler on 10/20/15. (js)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

(Doc. No. 20)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
___________________________________
:
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
:
SECURITY
:
:
Defendant.
:
___________________________________ :
Julaney SOBOLESKI,

Civil No. 14–3156 (RBK)
OPINION

KUGLER, United States District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court upon the motion of the Commissioner of Social
Security (“Defendant”) for reconsideration of this Court’s May 27, 2015 Order and Opinion.
This Court vacated the administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) decision, and remanded the matter to
the ALJ for further proceedings. For the following reasons, Defendant’s Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. No. 20) is DENIED.
I.

BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Defendant’s final determination denied Social Security Disability Benefits to Plaintiff,

and she appealed to this Court (Doc. No. 1). On May 27, 2015, this Court determined that the
ALJ did not properly evaluate how Plaintiff’s non-severe impairment affected her Residual
Functioning Capacity (“RFC”) (Doc. No. 18). The Order vacated the ALJ’s determination and
remanded the matter back to the ALJ for further proceedings consistent with the accompanying
Opinion (Doc. No. 19). On June 5, 2015, Defendant filed this Motion for Reconsideration (Doc.
No. 20).

1

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
II.

(Doc. No. 20)

LEGAL STANDARD
Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly authorize motions for

reconsideration, Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) allows such a review. See, e.g., White v. City of Trenton,
848 F. Supp. 2d 497, 500 (D.N.J. 2012). A party seeking reconsideration should file a brief
setting forth the matter or controlling decisions, which the party believes the court overlooked. L.
Civ. R. 7.1(i); see also Bowers v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 130 F. Supp. 2d 610, 612
(D.N.J. 2001). A motion for reconsideration under Rule 7.1(i) asks for an “extraordinary
remedy,” and courts should grant such motions sparingly. P. Schoenfeld Asset Mgmt. LLC v.
Cendant Corp., 161 F. Supp. 2d 349, 353 (D.N.J. 2001).
To prevail on a motion for reconsideration, a moving party must show at least one of the
following grounds: “(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new
evidence that was not available when the court [made its initial decision]; or (3) the need to
correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.” Max's Seafood Café v.
Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). Reconsideration is not appropriate when the motion
only raises a party’s disagreement with a court’s initial decision. Florham Park Chevron, Inc. v.
Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 680 F. Supp. 159, 163 (D.N.J. 1988). Normally, a party should use the
appellate process when it disagrees with a court’s decision. United States v. Compaction Sys.
Corp., 88 F. Supp. 2d 339, 345 (D.N.J. 1999).
III.

DISCUSSION
Defendant asks this Court to reconsider its initial determination and to reconsider

portions of the ALJ’s findings. There are no issues of a change in controlling law or the
availability of new evidence. Therefore, “the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to
prevent manifest injustice” is the sole basis for Defendant’s Motion. Max's Seafood Café, 176

2

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

(Doc. No. 20)

F.3d at 677. Upon reconsideration of the initial decision, this Court determines there were no
clear errors of law or fact. Furthermore, this Court’s remand to the ALJ for further proceedings
will not result in manifest injustice to Defendant.
The ALJ failed to consider how Plaintiff’s non-severe impairment impacted her RFC.
When making an RFC determination, the ALJ “must consider limitations and restrictions
imposed by all of an individual’s impairments, even those that are not ‘severe.’” SSR 96–8p
(emphasis added). The ALJ must consider all relevant evidence when determining an
individual’s RFC. See, e.g., Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 41 (3d Cir. 2001).
Defendant’s Motion points to the ALJ’s step-two analysis. Specifically, the analysis
noted that Plaintiff’s irritable bowel syndrome (“IBS”) was not severe and did not cause
vocationally relevant limitations. Defendant would have this Court read the ALJ’s severity
analysis as directly applicable to the RFC analysis. However, a simple phrase in the step-two
analysis does not obviate the need for a separate analysis of how Plaintiff’s impairment affects
her RFC. The initial Opinion specifically mentioned the ALJ’s step-two analysis and affirmed
the ALJ’s decision that Plaintiff’s IBS was not a severe impairment. Nevertheless, the ALJ did
not adequately address the effect of Plaintiff’s IBS on her RFC.
IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

Dated:

10/20/2015

s/ Robert B. Kugler
ROBERT B KUGLER
United States District Judge

3