Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00726/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00726-1/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 (SSID)

---

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

Brenda Kuchenberg, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of 

Social Security,

Defendant. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 10-726-TUC-GEE

ORDER

Pending before the court is the defendant’s motion to alter or amend the judgment

pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). (Doc. 17)

The plaintiff filed this action for review of the final decision of the Commissioner for

Social Security pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §405(b). In an order issued on July 5, 2011, this court

reversed the Commissioner’s final decision and remanded the case for payment of benefits. The

Commissioner then filed the instant motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to

Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) arguing this action should have been remanded for further proceedings rather

than for an award of benefits. 

Discussion

“There are four grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted: 1) the motion

is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment is based; 2) the

Case 4:10-cv-00726-GEE Document 20 Filed 09/13/11 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 -

moving party presents newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; 3) the motion is

necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or 4) there is an intervening change in controlling law.

Turner v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003)

(punctuation modified).

The Commissioner does not argue there has been an intervening change in the controlling

law, that he has newly discovered evidence, or that this court has committed “manifest errors

of law or fact.” See Turner, 338 F.3d at 1063. Neither does the Commissioner present any

evidence that this court’s resolution of the case will result in a “manifest injustice.” Id. Instead,

the Commissioner argues there is case law that supports remanding the action for further

proceedings rather than for payment of benefits. He urges this court to exercise its discretion

and amend the judgment accordingly. At best, the Commissioner’s argument supports the

proposition that reasonable minds could differ over the best resolution of this action. This is

an insufficient premise upon which to base a motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the defendant’s motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant

to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) is DENIED. (Doc. 17)

DATED this 12th day of September, 2011.

Case 4:10-cv-00726-GEE Document 20 Filed 09/13/11 Page 2 of 2