Opinion
No. CV-17-2795-PHX-DMF
10-24-2018
Nicole Vance, Plaintiff, v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.
ORDER
After the Court remanded this matter for further proceedings, the Commissioner moved for reconsideration. (Doc. 28) The Court permitted Plaintiff to respond and the Commissioner did not reply. (Doc. 30)
Under LRCiv 7.2(g)(1), "[t]he Court will ordinarily deny a motion for reconsideration of an Order absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence." Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances and should not be used for the purpose of asking a court "'to rethink what the court had already thought through — rightly or wrongly.'" Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F.Supp. 1342, 1351 (D.Ariz. 1995) (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D.Va. 1983)).
Defendant argues that the Court's Order was incomplete because it did not address the portion of the ALJ's opinion that had provided no weight to the medical opinions in the record. (Doc. 28 at 2-3) As Plaintiff notes, the Court's Order did address this portion of the ALJ opinion. (Doc. 26 at 3; Doc. 30 at 2-3)
Defendant has moved for reconsideration without showing manifest error, without showing new facts or legal authority, and nothing in Defendant's Motion "could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence." LRCiv 7.2(g)(1). Accordingly, the Court will deny the motion and its Order, including guidance for the remand, remains undisturbed.
Plaintiff's attempt to use her response to argue for a remand for benefits is not well taken. --------
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying the Commissioner's Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 28)
Dated this 24th day of October, 2018.
/s/_________
Honorable Deborah M. Fine
United States Magistrate Judge