Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-00675/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-00675-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 Michael J. Astrue became Commissioner of the Social Security Administration on 1

February 1, 2007.

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited. 2

Case No. C 07-00675 JF

ORDER AMENDING ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ETC.

(JFLC2)

**E-Filed 4/17/08**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

LOIS E. ANDELIN,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE ,

1

Commissioner,

Social Security Administration,

 Defendant.

Case Number C 07-00675 JF

ORDER AMENDING ORDER 2

GRANTING SUMMARY

JUDGMENT; AND DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR LEAVE

TO FILE A MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

[re: docket nos. 15 and 17]

On March 28, 2008, the Court issued an order granting summary judgment for Defendant,

and entered judgment for Defendant and against Plaintiff. On April 7, 2008, Plaintiff submitted a

request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, asserting that this Court applied the wrong

legal standard in analyzing the adverse credibility determination of the Administrative Law Judge

(“ALJ”).

Case 5:07-cv-00675-JF Document 18 Filed 04/17/08 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Case No. C 07-00675 JF

ORDER AMENDING ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ETC.

(JFLC2)

The Court thanks Plaintiff’s counsel for bringing this matter to light. Applying the

appropriate legal standard, the Court remains of the opinion that Defendant is entitled to

summary judgment. The Court’s order recites several of the reasons articulated by the ALJ in

reaching her decision. Based upon its review of the record, the Court concludes that those

reasons were specific, clear and convincing. See Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1036

(9th Cir. 2007) (holding that when there is objective medical evidence of an underlying

impairment and no evidence of malingering, the ALJ must state specific, clear and convincing

reasons for rejecting a claimant’s subjective pain testimony). 

In light of the foregoing, the order granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is

hereby AMENDED as follows: at original page 6, line 17, replace the sentence beginning

“According” with the following sentence: “Moreover, these reasons are specific, clear and

convincing. See Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1036 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that when

there is objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment and no evidence of malingering,

the ALJ must state specific, clear and convincing reasons for rejecting a claimant’s subjective

pain testimony).” 

Given this disposition, no purpose would be served by permitting Plaintiff to file a formal

motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for leave to file a motion for

reconsideration is DENIED.

DATED: 4/17/08 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-00675-JF Document 18 Filed 04/17/08 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Case No. C 07-00675 JF

ORDER AMENDING ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ETC.

(JFLC2)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

jim_miller0@yahoo.com 

peter.thompson@ssa.gov 

Deborah.Stachel@ssa.gov 

Case 5:07-cv-00675-JF Document 18 Filed 04/17/08 Page 3 of 3