Tabayoyon v. Kijakazi, No. 1:2020cv03080 - Document 30 (E.D. Wash. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING 27 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (LMR, Case Administrator)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Tabayoyon v. Kijakazi Doc. 30 Case 1:20-cv-03080-FVS ECF No. 30 filed 09/20/21 PageID.2929 Page 1 of 6 1 FI LED I N THE U.S. DI STRI CT COURT EASTERN DI STRI CT OF WASHI NGTON 2 Sep 20, 2021 3 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 7 ANNE T., No: 1:20-CV-03080-FVS Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT 11 Defendant. 12 13 BEFORE THE COURT is the Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter Judgment pursuant 14 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). ECF No. 27. For reasons discussed 15 below, the Court denies Defendant’s motion. 16 17 BACKGROUND On June 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint pursuant to the Social Security 18 Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), challenging the Social Security Commissioner’s final 19 decision denying Plaintiff’s application for Social Security Disability Insurance. 20 ECF No. 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment was filed on February 5, 21 2021. ECF No. 19. Defendant’s cross Motion for Summary Judgment was filed ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT ~ 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:20-cv-03080-FVS ECF No. 30 filed 09/20/21 PageID.2930 Page 2 of 6 1 on March 5, 2021. ECF No. 22. Plaintiff filed a reply on April 5, 2021. ECF No. 2 23. The Court entered an Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary 3 Judgment and Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and entered 4 Judgment against Plaintiff on July 30, 2021. ECF Nos. 25, 26. Now, Plaintiff 5 brings the instant motion to alter this Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 6 ECF No. 27. 7 LEGAL STANDARD 8 Rule 59(e) allows a party to file a motion to alter or amend a judgment no 9 later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment. The Ninth Circuit has held that 10 reconsideration of a judgment is appropriate “if the district court (1) is presented 11 with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision 12 was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” 13 Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 14 DISCUSSION 15 Plaintiff argues that “[c]lear error occurred in the present decision concerning 16 an improper assessment of harmless error, and the result was manifestly unjust,” and 17 requests this Court alter its Judgment to reverse and remand this case back to the 18 Commissioner of Social Security for additional proceedings. ECF No. 27. 19 The Ninth Circuit has clearly set forth the standard of review in cases against 20 the Commissioner of Social Security: A district court “will disturb the denial of 21 benefits only if the decision ‘contains legal error or is not supported by substantial ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT ~ 2 Case 1:20-cv-03080-FVS ECF No. 30 filed 09/20/21 PageID.2931 Page 3 of 6 1 evidence.’” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir. 2008) citing Orn v. 2 Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007). Substantial evidence is “‘such relevant 3 evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” 4 Orn, 495 F.3d at 360 (quoting Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 5 2005)). The “evidence must be more than a mere scintilla but not necessarily a 6 preponderance.” Connett v. Barnhart, 340 F.3d 871, 873 (9th Cir. 2003). The 7 district court will uphold the ALJ’s conclusion even when the evidence is 8 susceptible to more than one rational interpretation. Burch, 400 F.3d at 679. The 9 Ninth Circuit has clearly stated that the district court “will not reverse an ALJ’s 10 decision for harmless error, which exists when it is clear from the record that ‘the 11 ALJ’s error was inconsequential to the ultimate non disability determination.’” 12 Tommasetti, 533 F.3d at 1038 (quoting Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 13 885 (9th Cir. 2006); Stout v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1055-56 (9th 14 Cir. 2006)). 15 In this case, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) provided ten reasons to 16 reject Plaintiff’s symptom statements. ECF No. 25 at 17-18. Plaintiff failed to 17 challenge three of the ten reasons before this Court, resulting in a waiver of the 18 issues. Id. at 21-22. Of the remaining seven reasons that the Court addressed, it 19 found that four met the specific, clear and convincing standard required to reject 20 Plaintiff’s symptom statements and were supported by substantial evidence. Id. at 21 16-21. The Court found that any resulting error from the three reasons that failed to ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT ~ 3 Case 1:20-cv-03080-FVS ECF No. 30 filed 09/20/21 PageID.2932 Page 4 of 6 1 meet the specific, clear and convincing standard, or were not supported by 2 substantial evidence, was harmless because the ALJ had provided legally sufficient 3 reasons supported by substantial evidence to reject Plaintiff’s symptom statements. 4 Id. at 22-23. Likewise, the ALJ provided four reasons for rejecting Dr. Rue’s 5 opinion. Id. at 25-26. The Court found that one of those reasons met the specific 6 and legitimate standard required to reject the opinion and was supported by 7 substantial evidence. Id. at 27-30. Therefore, the Court found that any error 8 resulting from the other three reasons that failed to meet the specific and legitimate 9 standard, or were not supported by substantial evidence, was harmless because the 10 ALJ had provided a legally sufficient reason supported by substantial evidence to 11 reject the opinion. Id. at 30-31. 12 13 Plaintiff asserts that the Court applied the wrong harmless error standard and relies on the following Ninth Circuit holding in Stout: 16 we hold that where the ALJ’s error lies in a failure to properly discuss competent lay testimony favorable to the claimant, a reviewing court cannot consider the error harmless unless it can confidently conclude that no reasonable ALJ, when fully crediting the testimony, could have reached a different disability determination. 17 454 F.3d at 1056. ECF No. 27 at 10. However, Plaintiff’s reliance on this specific 18 finding in Stout is misplaced. The Circuit Court’s application of the harmless error 19 rule in Stout was to evidence that had been improperly rejected. 454 F.3d at 1056. 20 Therefore, the harmless error analysis required the district court to consider, if the 21 testimony were credited as true, whether or not a reasonable ALJ would reach a 14 15 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT ~ 4 Case 1:20-cv-03080-FVS ECF No. 30 filed 09/20/21 PageID.2933 Page 5 of 6 1 different decision. Id. In this case, the Court did not find that the evidence was 2 improperly rejected. Instead, it found that the ALJ provided legally sufficient 3 reasons supported by substantial evidence for rejecting Plaintiff’s symptom 4 statements and the opinion of Dr. Rue. Therefore, there is no requirement that the 5 Court then credit the evidence as true and analyze whether or not a reasonable ALJ 6 would have reached a difference decision. 7 The Circuit in Stout discusses a case similar to the present case at issue: 8 We recently applied harmless error where, unlike here, the ALJ expressly discredited testimony but erred in doing so. See Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1195-97 (9th Cir. 2004). In Batson, the ALJ found the claimant’s pain testimony incredible based, in part, on the claimant’s statement that he watched over six hours of television per day. Id. at 1196–97. The ALJ reasoned that the claimant’s ability to sit for that amount of time while watching television indicated he could sit for at least six hours of an eight-hour workday. Id. at 1197. Although the record did not confirm the claimant always sat during his television viewing, we concluded that any error the ALJ committed in assuming he did was harmless. Id. We did so because the ALJ provided numerous other record-supported reasons for discrediting the claimant’s testimony, which allowed our review to determine the ALJ’s error did not materially impact his decision. Id. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 454 F.3d at 1054-55. In this case, like in Batson, the ALJ provided other legally 17 sufficient reasons supported by substantial evidence for rejecting Plaintiff’s 18 symptom statements and Dr. Rue’s opinion. Therefore, there is no clear error or 19 manifest unjust result to justify altering the Court’s Judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 59(e). 21 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT ~ 5 Case 1:20-cv-03080-FVS 1 2 3 ECF No. 30 filed 09/20/21 PageID.2934 Page 6 of 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter Judgment, ECF No. 27, is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is directed to enter this 4 Order and provide copies to counsel. 5 DATED September 20, 2021. 6 7 s/ Rosanna Malouf Peterson ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT ~ 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
