Opinion
Case No. 02-4115-JAR.
June 14, 2004
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Alter or Amend (Doc. 24) the Court's Memorandum and Order reversing and remanding Defendant Commissioner of Social Security's denial of Plaintiff's application for a period of supplemental security income benefits (Doc. 22). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted.
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 mistakenly has decided an issue not presented 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 argues that the Court inappropriately stated that upon remand the ALJ was to complete a Psychiatric Review Technique Form (PRT form). The Court did not state that the ALJ was required to fill out a PRT form on remand, but that he must reconsider his findings on the PRT form after reconsidering the weight he gave to the opinions of the psychiatrist and psychologist. The Court should have stated that the ALJ must consider his findings using the psychiatric review technique and should not have mentioned that the ALJ was required to fill out a PRT form, as this requirement is no longer part of the regulations. However, the ALJ is still required to consider the criteria in 20 C.F.R. § 416.920a and document the procedure accordingly in his opinion, which was lacking in this case. On remand, the ALJ should reconsider his use of the psychiatric review technique and document his findings accordingly.
With that clarification, the Court alters and amends its previous Memorandum and Order (Doc. 22). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (Doc. 24) shall be GRANTED.