Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-02152/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-02152-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Donald S. Roth, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Jo Anne Barnhart, Commissioner of the

Social Security Administration, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-2152-PCT-LOA

ORDER

This matter arises on Plaintiff's Motion To Amend Judgment Under Rules 59 Or

60(b) etc. (docket # 27), filed on May 4, 2006. The Court has reviewed and considered the

subject Motion, the Government's Response (docket # 29) in opposition thereto and Plaintiff's

Reply (docket # 30). The Court will grant the subject Motion in part to correct its inadvertent

mistake akin to a typographical error and will deny further relief.

The Court's order (docket # 25), entered on April 24, 2006, inadvertently mentioned

"Dr. Cunningham's assessment" when this record does not even mention a Dr. Cunningham,

much less an assessment by him or her. The Court agrees with both counsel that this error is

similar to a mere typographical error, is immaterial and harmless overall when considering the

totality of the twenty-four (24) page order. Nevertheless, the record should be clarified to avoid

any future confusion since the Court's intent in the subject order was that Dr. Womack's and Dr.

Easley's assessments (Exh. 30F and 14F) should have been credited by the ALJ. The Court will

Case 3:05-cv-02152-LOA Document 31 Filed 05/25/06 Page 1 of 2
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 -

strike the subject sentence and replace it with the one the Court intended. All further relief

requested by Plaintiff will be denied.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1), FED.R.CIV.P.,

Plaintiff’s Motion To Amend Judgment Under Rules 59 Or 60(b) (docket # 27) is GRANTED

in part. The following sentence on page 21, line 26 to page 22, lines 1 through 3 of this Court's

April 24, 2006 order is hereby STRICKEN: "The Court concludes that the ALJ should have

credited Dr. Cunningham's assessment through the hypothetical question posed to the vocational

expert which likely would have resulted in an answer that Plaintiff's physical limitations preclude

Plaintiff from further gainful employment." 

Substituted in the place of the aforesaid sentence is the following sentence: "The

Court concludes that the ALJ should have credited Dr. Womack's and Dr. Easley's assessments

(Exhs. 30F and 14F) through the hypothetical questions posed to the vocational expert which

did result in answers that Plaintiff's limitations preclude Plaintiff from further gainful

employment."

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other requested relief in the subject Motion

is DENIED.

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Judgment, entered on April 24, 2006, is

hereby AMENDED consistent herewith, effective today.

DATED this 24th day of May, 2006.

Case 3:05-cv-02152-LOA Document 31 Filed 05/25/06 Page 2 of 2