Opinion
Civ. No. 02-4003 (DRD).
September 14, 2004
Steven Gaechter, Esq., Hackensack, NJ, Attorney for Plaintiff.
Anthony J. Labruna, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney, Newark, New Jersey, Attorney for Defendant.
OPINION
Defendant has moved pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) for reconsideration of this Court's July 12, 2004 Order reversing the determination of the Commissioner. Defendant contends that the Court erroneously relied on evidence submitted to the Appeals Council after the ALJ's decision. Defendant's motion is based on a misunderstanding of the Court's July 12, 2004 Opinion (the "Opinion"): although the evidence in question was discussed, it was not essential to the Court's decision. Accordingly, Defendant's Rule 59(e) motion will be denied.
The Defendant quotes language from cases establishing that the Court does not review a decision in a Social Security case de novo and therefore can merely review evidence already in the record at the time of the ALJ's denial of benefits. This is indeed the rule; but, contrary to Defendant's argument, the Court's July 12 decision did not violate it.
The specific evidence that provides the basis for this motion is that provided by Plaintiff's treating physician Dr. Theune, consisting of three medical questionnaires, two years after the date of the ALJ's determination. Opinion 43-44. The contention that the Court relied on this new evidence as a basis for its decision is incorrect. The language of the Opinion specifically states that "[n]ew evidence submitted by the Plaintiff before the Appeals Council supports the conclusion that Plaintiff lacked the Residual Functional Capacity to perform even sedentary work."Id. at 43. This language demonstrates that while the new evidence supports the determination that Plaintiff was disabled, it was the evidence before the ALJ that actually provided the basis for that conclusion. The conclusion of disability was already in place before the Court looked to the additional evidence. Indeed, the Court then stated that "[w]hile it is the ALJ's decision and the evidence before him that are under review, this new evidence fortifies the position of this court." Id. The Court merely observed that the new evidence confirmed its already established decision. While the Opinion does say that the "Appeals Council erred in rejecting this new evidence," id. at 44, earlier language clearly demonstrates that the Court was not reviewing the decision of the Appeals Council, but rather that of the ALJ. Id. at 43. Merely by mentioning this evidence and its relevance in the Opinion, the Court did not intend to suggest that it was conducting additional fact finding.
For the reasons stated above. The motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e) will be denied.