UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON

VICTOR AINA,

Plaintiff,

v. 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No. 6:15-cv-00746-KI

OPINION AND ORDER ON

RECONSIDERATION

Alan Stuart Graf, P.C.

208 Pine St.

Floyd, VA 24091

Attorney for Plaintiff

Billy J. Williams

United States Attorney

District of Oregon

Janice E. Hebert

Assistant United States Attorney

1000 SW Third Ave., Ste. 600

Portland, OR 97204-2902

Page 1 - OPINION AND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION

Case 6:15-cv-00746-KI Document 29 Filed 12/01/16 Page 1 of 5
Alexis L. Toma

Special Assistant United States Attorney

Office of the General Counsel

Social Security Administration

701 Fifth Ave., Ste. 2900 M/S 221A

Seattle, WA 98104-7075

Attorneys for Defendant

KING, Judge:

Plaintiff Victor Aina brought an action pursuant to section 205(g) of the Social Security

Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), to obtain judicial review of a final decision of the

Commissioner denying his application for supplemental security income benefits (“SSI”). I

affirmed the decision of the Commissioner. He now seeks reconsideration of that decision.

LEGAL STANDARDS

A court may reconsider a decision under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). 

However, a motion for reconsideration of a court’s order must show newly discovered evidence,

a change in controlling law, or that the decision was clearly erroneous or manifestly unjust. 

Smith v. Clark Cnty. School Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting School Dist. No. 1J,

Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993)). 

DISCUSSION

Aina contends my decision affirming the ALJ’s decision was clearly erroneous or

manifestly unjust, arguing I supplemented the ALJ’s opinion with my own reasoning in order to

conclude the ALJ made no error in rejecting Dr. Taubenfeld’s opinion.

Aina specifically takes issue with my assertion that “the number of [Aina’s] angry

outbursts fell from six a week to once a week or less over the course of his two years in therapy. 

PAGE 2 - OPINION AND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION

Case 6:15-cv-00746-KI Document 29 Filed 12/01/16 Page 2 of 5
Further, the record reflects Aina’s ability to cope improved as did his ability to ask for help in

resolving situations.” Op. and Order 15 (ECF No. 25). I wrote this in the context of concluding

substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s finding that treatment notes did not reflect worsening of

Aina’s symptoms, putting into question Dr. Taubenfeld’s opinion that Aina “may” have difficulty

maintaining emotional stability. Id. Aina also argues I was incorrect to conclude that the ALJ

rejected Dr. Taubenfeld’s opinion because it was ambiguous as to Aina’s actual limitations,

when the doctor phrased his opinion as Aina “may” have problems with emotional stability,

resolving conflicts, or interacting appropriately in a work setting. 

My decision to affirm the ALJ was not a clearly erroneous decision, or manifestly unjust. 

Although the ALJ did not specifically identify the reduction in angry outbursts over the course of

Aina’s treatment, he did indicate in several places in his opinion that Aina “began a course of

mental health therapy for anger management,” that Aina began “feeling ‘better’ emotionally and

mentally because he is getting better rest with the use of his C-PAP machine,” that Aina regularly

presented with an unremarkable appearance and cooperative manner, that Aina tested as

cooperative and warm, and that while Aina “presented with some mental symptoms that are

consistent with Dr. Taubenfeld’s opinion regarding social limitations, such symptoms are

generally not found in subsequent treatment and therapy reports.” Tr. 18, 13, 17, 19. The ALJ

then gave a few examples in support of his finding. I disagree that my citation to evidence

demonstrating the ALJ’s point–that symptoms corroborating Dr. Taubenfeld’s opinion are

generally not found in treatment and therapy reports–is post hoc rationalization. I did not “invent

a new ground of decision” but merely pointed out “additional support for the Commissioner’s

and the ALJ’s position,” evidence which was before the ALJ and which supported the ALJ’s

PAGE 3 - OPINION AND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION

Case 6:15-cv-00746-KI Document 29 Filed 12/01/16 Page 3 of 5
stated grounds. Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1005 n.3 (9th

 Cir. 2006);

see also Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Even when an agency explains

its decision with less than ideal clarity, we must uphold it if the agency’s path may reasonably be

discerned.”). 

I also read the ALJ’s opinion as commenting on the ambiguous nature of Dr.

Taubenfeld’s opinions. Specifically, the ALJ found as follows:

Oddly, Dr. Taubenfeld also opined that the claimant would have difficulty coping

with the emotional demands and stress of work, and that he ‘may’ periodically

have difficulty maintaining emotional stability. He further concluded that the

claimant ‘may be unable’ to effectively resolve conflicts with coworkers, and

‘may be unable’ to understand/demonstrate interactions or behaviors appropriate

to a work setting. While the claimant may have presented with some mental

symptoms that are consistent with Dr. Taubenfeld’s opinion regarding social

limitations, such symptoms are generally not found in subsequent treatment and

therapy reports.

Tr. 19. The ALJ’s repeated quotation of Dr. Taubenfeld’s use of the word “may” together with

his characterization of Dr. Taubenfeld’s conclusions as “odd,” suggested to me that the ALJ

found Dr. Taubenfeld’s opinion non-imperative. I concluded from the ALJ’s summary that he

felt the opinion was ambiguous about Aina’s limitations, which was a rational conclusion to

draw based on the ALJ’s summary of Dr. Taubenfeld’s opinion. Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d

747, 755 (9th

 Cir. 1989) (“As a reviewing court, we are not deprived of our faculties for drawing

specific and legitimate inferences from the ALJ’s opinion. It is proper for us to read the

paragraph discussing Dr. Pont’s findings and opinion, and draw inferences relevant to Dr. Fox’s

findings and opinion, if those inferences are there to be drawn.”). Since the doctor’s restrictions

were non-imperative, the ALJ was not required to include them in the RFC. 

PAGE 4 - OPINION AND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION

Case 6:15-cv-00746-KI Document 29 Filed 12/01/16 Page 4 of 5
Finally, as the Commissioner points out, I certainly made no finding that Aina would

have weekly outbursts. Indeed, Aina had past relevant work despite any issues with anger. 

Accordingly, a reversal for a finding of disability is not warranted.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, I find no reason to reconsider my earlier opinion affirming the

Commissioner. The Motion to Amend/Correct Opinion [27] is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 30th

 day of November, 2016. 

 /s/ Garr M. King 

Garr M. King

United States District Judge

PAGE 5 - OPINION AND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION

Case 6:15-cv-00746-KI Document 29 Filed 12/01/16 Page 5 of 5