Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01813/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01813-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:205 Denial 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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANGELIC RENEE PALLESI,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01813-SMS

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S 

MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT AND 

STRIKING ORDER REVERSING AGENCY'S 

DENIAL OF BENEFITS (Doc. 17)

(Doc. 19)

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), Respondent, the Acting Commissioner of 

Social Security, has moved to amend the Court's December 11, 2013 order reversing the agency's 

denial of benefits and remanding for calculation of benefits (Doc. 17). The Commissioner contends 

that the Court inaccurately assessed both the ALJ's findings in the hearing decision and Plaintiff's 

challenge to them. In particular, the Commissioner argues that the Court made a pervasive error in 

finding that the ALJ erred in failing to find that Plaintiff had a severe mental impairment at step two 

of the disability analysis. Although Plaintiff seeks to characterize the Court's misstatement as a mere 

"scrivener's error," the Court agrees with the Commissioner that amendment is necessary to correct 

pervasive substantive and analytical error in the December 11, 2014 order.

Under Rule 59(e), a district court has the power to alter or amend a judgment upon a party's 

motion. One of the grounds for a motion to alter or amend is the Court's commission of clear error 

in the judgment or order. Turner v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rwy. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 

(9th Cir. 2003); School District 1J, Multnomah County, Oregon v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 

Case 1:13-cv-01813-SKO Document 26 Filed 02/05/15 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

(9th Cir. 1993); Nelson v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, 522 F.Supp.2d 1222, 1233 (C.D.Cal. 

2007). Granting or denying a Rule 59 motion for reconsideration is a matter of the district court's 

discretion. Id. at 1262.

The Court review of its decision reveals multiple internal inconsistencies. Most notably, in 

restating the ALJ's sequential analysis, the decision correctly indicated that the ALJ found Plaintiff's 

impairment to be major depressive and anxiety disorder. Doc. 17 at 28. At the close of that 

discussion, however, the Court indicated, "Plaintiff challenges the ALJ's nondisability determination 

because the ALJ's Step-Two findings and conclusion are not supported by substantial evidence 

because she improperly weighed mental health providers' opinions." Doc. 17 at 29. The decision 

then proceeded to analyze the ALJ's finding of no severe mental impairments at Step Two. 

The Court rejects Plaintiff's argument that the order's reference to Step Two was simply a 

scrivener's error. The context of the discussion specifically addresses the expert opinions and 

concludes that the ALJ erred in failing to find the Plaintiff's mental impairments to be severe 

disorders. The discussion is confused, confusing, and clear error.

The Court also recognizes that the decision strayed from the matters that Plaintiff placed in 

issue, including its consideration of Plaintiff's credibility and its analysis of the opinions of Jamie L. 

Powers, LMFT, and Patricia Lometti, LCSW. The Court compounded this error by substituting its 

assessment of all medical opinions for that of the ALJ.

In short, the Court agrees with the Commissioner's contentions that pervasive error in the 

December 11, 2014 order requires its alteration or amendment. Because of the multiple errors and 

their pervasive nature, the Court will not attempt merely to amend the existing order but will issue a 

new determination following its reconsideration of the parties' briefs, applicable law, and the record 

as a whole.

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS:

1. The Commissioner's motion for alteration or amendment is GRANTED.

2. The Order Reversing Agency's Denial of Benefits and Ordering Remand for 

Calculation of Benefits (Doc. 17) and the judgment in this matter (Doc. 18) are hereby 

STRICKEN in their entireties.

Case 1:13-cv-01813-SKO Document 26 Filed 02/05/15 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

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to reopen the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 4, 2015 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01813-SKO Document 26 Filed 02/05/15 Page 3 of 3