Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01334/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01334-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:416 Denial of Social Security Benefits

---

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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PETER J. TUNNEL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:14-cv-1334 AC 

ORDER 

This case was referred to the undersigned by E.D. Cal. R. 302(c)(15). Before the court is 

defendant Colvin’s (“the Commissioner”) motion (ECF No. 22) to reconsider the court’s order 

granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and remanding for the immediate calculation 

and award of benefits (ECF No. 20). For the reasons discussed below, the court will deny the 

Commissioner’s motion. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD 

In general, there are four basic grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) 

motion may be granted: (1) if such motion is necessary to correct 

manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment rests; (2) if 

such motion is necessary to present newly discovered or previously 

unavailable evidence; (3) if such motion is necessary to prevent 

manifest injustice; or (4) if the amendment is justified by an 

intervening change in controlling law. 

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing McDowell v. Calderon, 

197 F.3d 1253, 1255 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1082 (2000)). 

Case 2:14-cv-01334-AC Document 27 Filed 12/07/15 Page 1 of 6
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

However, “amending a judgment after its entry remains an extraordinary remedy which should be 

used sparingly.” Allstate, 634 F.3d at 1111 (internal quotation marks omitted). Amendment of 

judgment is sparingly used to serve the dual “interests of finality and conservation of judicial 

resources.” See Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). 

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

 On June 2, 2014, plaintiff filed this action seeking reversal of the Commissioner’s 

decision to deny benefits under Title II and Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 401-34, 1381-1383f. ECF No. 1. On September 14, 2015, the court granted plaintiff’s 

subsequent motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary 

judgment, and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for the immediate calculation and award 

of benefits. ECF No. 20. 

 The court found that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) completely ignored the 

opinion of the treating psychotherapist (Dr. Marilyn L. Perry). ECF No. 20 at 13-16. The court 

also found that the ALJ improperly rejected the opinion of the treating psychiatrist (Dr. Pamela 

Martell), and the examining psychologist (Dr. Tamar Wishnatzky). ECF No. 20 at 16-21. The 

court further concluded that, crediting these opinions as true, plaintiff was disabled according to 

the Listing of Impairments, 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Supt. P, App. 1. ECF No. 20 at 22. The court 

therefore remanded for payment of benefits, under the authority of Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 798 

F.3d 749 (9th Cir. 2015), Treichler v. Commissioner of Social Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1101 

(9th Cir. 2014), and Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2014). 

 On October 13, 2015, the Commissioner moved to alter or amend the court’s judgment. 

ECF No. 22. The motion argues only the first Allstate ground, and is based upon the 

Commissioner’s view that (1) the court reached the wrong result in finding that plaintiff met the 

Listings, and (2) it was legal error to remand for payment of benefits rather than for further 

proceedings. Plaintiff opposes the motion for reconsideration. Id. 

III. ANALYSIS 

 The court will deny the Commissioner’s motion because its order remanding for the 

payment of benefits is not based on a manifest error of law. The Commissioner reiterates her 

Case 2:14-cv-01334-AC Document 27 Filed 12/07/15 Page 2 of 6
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

arguments that the evidence in the record does not show that plaintiff’s impairments meet the 

Listings, and re-emphasizes her view that plaintiff’s educational accomplishments show that he is 

not disabled. The Commissioner further argues that the court erred in remanding for the payment 

of benefits rather than for further proceedings. The Commissioner goes on to express her 

disagreement with the court’s application of the credit-as-true rule and its express application of 

Ninth Circuit authority requiring remand for the payment of benefits when the factors set forth in 

Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1020 (9th Cir. 2014) are met. 

 The court acknowledges the Commissioner’s often-stated and vehement disagreement 

with the Ninth’s Circuit’s “credit-as-true jurisprudence,” and her apparent view that recent Ninth 

Circuit authority undermines earlier Ninth Circuit authority on the propriety of remanding for 

payment of benefits. See ECF No. 22 at 6 n.7. However, this court is bound by all Ninth Circuit 

decisions where there is no intervening legislation, Supreme Court decision or en banc Ninth 

Circuit decision irreconcilably to the contrary. See Baker v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 6 F.3d 632, 

637 (9th Cir. 1993) (Ninth Circuit decisions are binding “unless an en banc decision, Supreme 

Court decision, or subsequent legislation undermines those decisions”) (internal quotation marks 

omitted); Ferguson v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., 733 F.3d 928, 933 (9th Cir. 2013) (prior circuit 

authority “is controlling absent any clearly irreconcilable intervening higher authority”) (citing 

Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 893 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc)). Accordingly, the court will 

continue to apply all authoritative Ninth Circuit decisions, even if they were handed down before 

the year 2014 or 2015, and even if the Commissioner believes that they were wrongly decided. 

 The court’s decision specifically listed and expressly addressed the Garrison factors 

governing remands for payment of benefits, and exercised the “flexibility” built in to that 

standard, even after finding that all the Garrison factors were met. See ECF No. 20 at 21-22. The 

Commissioner argues that the court “nominally acknowledged the Ninth Circuit’s most current 

credit-as-true law,” but “failed to properly follow that law.” ECF No. 22 at 6. She then goes on 

to re-argue her view, offered in her cross-motion for summary judgment, that “[s]hould the Court 

disagree with the ALJ’s decision, it should not remand for payment of benefits, but it should 

remand so that the entity Congress entrusted with making disability determinations may correct 

Case 2:14-cv-01334-AC Document 27 Filed 12/07/15 Page 3 of 6
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 

4

any perceived errors.” See ECF Nos. 19 at 19 n.3, 22 at 6-8. The motion for reconsideration will 

be denied where, as here, the Commissioner offers mere disagreement with the court’s decision, 

and recapitulates the arguments it made before the court in its cross-motion for summary 

judgment. See Arteaga v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, 733 F. Supp. 2d 1218, 1237 (E.D. Cal. 2010) 

(rejecting Rule 59(e) motion where plaintiff’s “arguments on reconsideration simply recapitulate 

her original argument”). 

 The court notes that the Commissioner takes particular exception to the court’s decision to 

remand for the payment of benefits because this remedy is not applied “rarely” enough by the 

undersigned. See ECF No. 22 at 6-7. The Commissioner seems to interpret the case law as 

saying that the court must refrain from granting this remedy unless the frequency of the remedy 

drops to some particular (unspecified) number or ratio. That is not correct. 

 The Ninth Circuit teaches that remands for the payment (or award) of benefits should 

occur only in the “rare circumstances” where it is called for. Moisa v. Barnhart, 367 F.3d 882, 

886 (9th Cir. 2004) (instructing that “the proper course, except in rare circumstances, is to remand 

to the agency for additional investigation or explanation,” but remanding for an award of benefits, 

in this “rare circumstance” where such an award is appropriate) (some internal quotation marks 

omitted); Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2014) (“Our 

case law strikes a balance between the ordinary remand rule that generally guides our review of 

administrative decisions and the additional flexibility provided by § 405(g), and thus we generally 

remand for an award of benefits only in ‘rare circumstances,’ Moisa, 367 F.3d at 886, ‘where no 

useful purpose would be served by further administrative proceedings and the record has been 

thoroughly developed’”) (quoting Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153, 1162 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal 

quotation marks omitted)). 

 This does not mean however, that this court should mechanically deny remands for 

payment of benefits even in the rare circumstances where it is appropriate, solely to achieve the 

end result of rarely granting the remedy. To the contrary, the Ninth Circuit, in numerous 

decisions following Moisa and Treichler, both published and unpublished, has made clear that 

when those rare circumstances are present, the district court errs by failing to apply the remedy of 

Case 2:14-cv-01334-AC Document 27 Filed 12/07/15 Page 4 of 6
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 

5

remand for payment of benefits.1 See Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 999 (9th Cir. 2014) 

(“[a]pplying our settled ‘credit-as-true’ rule, we reverse the judgment below with instructions to 

remand this case to the ALJ for the calculation and award of benefits”); Brewes v. Comm'r of 

Soc. Sec. Admin., 682 F.3d 1157, 1165 (9th Cir. 2012) (reversing the Commissioner’s decision 

and remanding for payment of benefits); Ryan v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 528 F.3d 1194, 1202 (9th 

Cir. 2008) (“we REVERSE and REMAND with instructions to remand to the Agency for 

payment of benefits”); Lounsburry v. Barnhart, 468 F.3d 1111, 1118 (9th Cir. 2006) 

(“REVERSED and REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS for the payment of benefits”).2

 

1

 Of course, this court has no control over how often this “rare” circumstance presents itself. The 

court takes the cases as it finds them. 

2

 See also, Mendoza v. Colvin, ___ F. App’x ___, 2015 WL 6437337 at *2, 2015 U.S. App. 

LEXIS 18521 at *4 (9th Cir. 2015) (“we reverse the decision of the district court with instructions 

to remand to the ALJ for a calculation and award of benefits”); Behling v. Colvin, 603 F. App'x 

541, 543 (9th Cir. 2015) (“we reverse and remand to the district court with instructions to remand 

to the ALJ for an award of benefits”); Martinez v. Colvin, 585 F. App'x 612 (9th Cir. 2014) (“we 

reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for payment of benefits”); Contreras v. 

Colvin, 583 F. App'x 630 (9th Cir. 2014) (“we reverse and remand to the district court with 

instructions to remand to the ALJ for an award of benefits”); Smith v. Colvin, 554 F. App'x 568, 

569 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[w]e therefore reverse the district court and remand for award of benefits”); 

Buck v. Colvin, 540 F. App'x 772 (9th Cir. 2013) (we reverse and remand to the district court 

with instructions to remand to the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for payment of benefits”); 

Mattson v. Colvin, 537 F. App'x 699 (9th Cir. 2013) (“we reverse and remand to the Social 

Security Agency for calculation of benefits”); Campbell v. Astrue, 506 F. App'x 575, 576 (9th 

Cir. 2013) (“we REVERSE the district court's judgment and REMAND with instructions for the 

district court to remand this case to the ALJ for an award of benefits”); Aranda v. Comm'r Soc. 

Sec. Admin., 405 F. App'x 139, 141 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[w]e therefore reverse the judgment of the 

district court and remand with instructions that the district court reverse the Commissioner's 

denial of benefits and remand to the Commissioner for the calculation and payment of benefits”); 

Hughes v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 403 F. App'x 218, 222 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[w]e therefore 

reverse the judgment of the district court and remand with directions that the district court reverse 

the Commissioner's denial of benefits and remand for the calculation and payment of benefits”); 

Van Sickle v. Astrue, 385 F. App'x 739, 742 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[w]e therefore reverse the 

judgment of the district court and remand with directions that the district court reverse the 

Commissioner's denial of benefits and remand for the calculation and payment of benefits”); 

Lapeirre-Gutt v. Astrue, 382 F. App'x 662, 666 (9th Cir. 2010) (“we remand with instructions to 

remand to the Commissioner of Social Security for immediate payment of benefits”); Stocki v. 

Comm'r Of Soc. Sec., 2009 WL 766499 at *1, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 6340 at *2 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(“we remand with instructions to remand to the Commissioner of Social Security for immediate 

payment of benefits”); McConner v. Barnhart, 125 F. App'x 769, 770 (9th Cir. 2005) (reversing 

the district court and remanding “for the payment of benefits”); McConner v. Barnhart, 125 F. 

. . . [continued] 

Case 2:14-cv-01334-AC Document 27 Filed 12/07/15 Page 5 of 6
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 

6

IV. CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Commissioner’s 

Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (ECF No. 22), is DENIED. 

DATED: December 4, 2015 

 

App'x 769, 770 (9th Cir. 2005) (“we reverse and remand this case for the payment of benefits”). 

Case 2:14-cv-01334-AC Document 27 Filed 12/07/15 Page 6 of 6