Opinion
Case No. 03-4162-JAR.
October 25, 2004
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on defendant's motion (Doc. 19) to alter or amend this Court's Memorandum and Order (Doc.17) reversing and remanding defendant `s denial of plaintiff's application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied.
A motion for reconsideration provides the court with an opportunity to correct "manifest errors of law or fact and to review newly discovered evidence." Appropriate circumstances for reconsideration include situations in which the court has obviously misapprehended a party's position, the facts or the law; or the court mistakenly has decided an issue not presented to it for determination. A losing party should not use a motion for reconsideration as a vehicle to rehash arguments previously considered and rejected. Nor does a party's failure to present her strongest case in the first instance entitle her to a second chance in the form of a motion for reconsideration. The party seeking reconsideration bears the burden to demonstrate a change in the law, the availability of new evidence, or that reconsideration is necessary to prevent manifest injustice. The decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is committed to a court's discretion.
Sac and Fox Nation of Mo. v. LaFaver, 993 F. Supp. 1374, 1375 (D. Kan. 1998).
Anderson v. United Auto Workers, 738 F. Supp. 441, 442 (D. Kan. 1990).
Voelkel v. Gen. Motors Corp., 846 F. Supp. 1482, 1483 (D . Kan. 1994).
Sac and Fox Nation, 993 F. Supp. at 1375-76.
Id. at 1376.
Hancock v. Oklahoma City, 857 F.2d 1394, 1395 (10th Cir. 1988).
Defendant contends that the Court's determination of error at Step Three was neither supported by the facts nor controlling law. Defendant argues that the ALJ was not required to discuss every piece of evidence. Although the ALJ need not discuss every piece of evidence, as the Tenth Circuit held in Clifton v. Chater, the ALJ must discuss some evidence to explain and support his findings that claimant does not meet a Listing, for "[t]he record must demonstrate that the ALJ considered all of the evidence. . . ." Here, the ALJ did not discuss any evidence supporting his finding that plaintiff did not meet a Listing, and the record does not evidence that the ALJ considered any such evidence.
79 F.3d 1007 (10th Cir. 1996).
Id. at 1009-10 (citing Vincent ex rel. Vincent v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1393, 1394-95 (9th Cir. 1984) (emphasis added)).
Defendant argues that Clifton is distinguishable because in Clifton the claimant asserted that he met a specific Listing; and the plaintiff in this case did not. But Plaintiff Fischer-Ross did provide medical and other evidence, complying with the requirement that in Social Security disability determinations, the claimant "furnish medical and other evidence that [the ALJ] can use to reach conclusions about [the claimant's] medical impairments. . . ." Moreover, the ALJ's duty to discuss evidence and explain findings exists irrespective of whether the claimant argues that she meets a particular listing. The ALJ has a duty to discuss evidence and explain such a finding, because:
In the absence of ALJ findings supported by specific weighing of the evidence, we cannot assess whether relevant evidence adequately supports the ALJ's conclusion that appellant's impairments did not meet or equal any Listed Impairment, and whether he applied the correct legal standards to arrive at that conclusion.
Clifton, 79 F.3d at 1109.
Absent any discussion by the ALJ of relevant, supportive evidence, as well as probative evidence the ALJ chooses not to rely on, the ALJ's findings and conclusion are beyond meaningful judicial review.
See Id. at 1009.
In this case, it appears that plaintiff provided the ALJ with pertinent and probative medical and other evidence, but if the ALJ analyzed it as it pertained to the Listing of Impairments, he did not include the analysis in his decision. Thus the Court is unable to fulfill its duty, which is to determine whether the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence.
Defendant further argues that it was inconsisent for the Court to find error at step three but no error at steps four and five. The five step evaluation process used by the ALJ in disability determinations is a sequential process; and a determination at any of the steps that a claimant is or is not disabled renders evaluation under a subsequent step unnecessary. Thus, defendant argues that if the ALJ made proper step four and five determinations, he must have first properly determined plaintiff did not meet a Listing in step three. But the Court's evaluation of the ALJ's determinations at steps four and five, is not an explicit or implicit finding that the determination at step three was proper.
Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750 (10th Cir. 1988) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920 (1986)).
Because the Court determined the ALJ's step three analysis was deficient, it could have remanded the case back to the ALJ without discussing plaintiff's remaining arguments. However, the Court went on to review the step four and step five determinations, which allows for a remand limited to whether plaintiff's impairments met or equaled a Listed Impairment. If the ALJ determines on remand that plaintiff's impairments do not meet or equal a Listed Impairment, then the ALJ does not need to re-analyze steps four and five again because this Court has concluded that his analysis of steps four and five was supported by substantial evidence. Obviously, if the ALJ decides that plaintiff's impairments are equal to a Listed Impairment, and the ALJ supports this decision with substantial evidence, the rest of the sequential analysis is irrelevant, and plaintiff will be determined disabled.
The Court finds no reason for granting this motion to alter or amend. Defendant has failed to demonstrate that this Court misapprehended the underlying facts or committed a manifest error of law. Nor has defendant shown that there is newly discovered evidence. Rather, defendant's motion is an attempt to rehash arguments previously considered and rejected by this Court.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (Doc. 19) shall be DENIED.