Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03379/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03379-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jo Anne B. Barnhart
Defendant
Denise A. Schanz
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

 Contrary to plaintiff’s argument, there is no Supreme Court authority on the issue. 

The Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2000),

cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1038 (2000) has no precedential value and expresses no opinion as

to the merits of the case. See, e.g., Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 296 (1989).

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENISE A. SCHANZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner,

Social Security Administration,

Defendant.

 /

No. C-05-3379 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

(Docket No. 19)

Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion, filed June 26, 2006, to alter or amend the

judgment, pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In particular,

plaintiff argues the Court erred by remanding the instant action for further administrative

proceedings rather than remanding for an award of benefits.

In so ruling, the Court relied on Connett v. Barnhart, 340 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Connett has never been overruled and remains good law.1

Moreover, the cases upon which plaintiff relies do not preclude remand for further

development of the record where, as here, the record contains no medical opinion that the

claimant is wholly incapable of performing work-related tasks and contains no opinion from

a vocational expert that the limitations set forth in any of the medical opinions offered

Case 3:05-cv-03379-MMC Document 20 Filed 06/30/06 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

 On cross-examination by plaintiff’s counsel, the vocational expert was asked to

consider limitations different than those provided in the ALJ’s hypothetical. The import of

that testimony, however, is, at best, unclear. Moreover, as noted in the Courts’ order of

June 15, 2006, Dr. English’s opinion would constitute substantial evidence had the ALJ

expressly relied on that opinion, and it does not appear that plaintiff’s limitations, as set

forth in Dr. English’s report, were presented to the vocational expert.

2

“would render [plaintiff] unable to engage in any work.”2 See Harman, 211 F.3d at 1180

(observing “where the testimony of the vocational expert has failed to address a claimant’s

limitations established by improperly discredited evidence, we have consistently remanded

for further proceedings rather than payment of benefits.”)

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 30, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03379-MMC Document 20 Filed 06/30/06 Page 2 of 2