Hines v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., Case No. 3:18-cv-250

414 F.Supp.3d 1080

Tameka HINES, Plaintiff,

v.COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

Case No. 3:18-cv-250

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division.

Signed October 29, 2019

Michael A. Rake, Horenstein, Nicholson & Blumenthal-3, Dayton, OH, for Plaintiff.

Ameenah Lewis, Mara S. Miskin, Social Security Administration, Chicago, IL, John J. Stark, U.S. Attorney Office, Columbus, OH, for Defendant.

(Consent Case)

ORDER: (1) DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT; AND (2) CLARIFYING THAT THIS CASE REMAIN CLOSED ON THE COURT'S DOCKET.

Michael J. Newman, United States Magistrate Judge

This Social Security Benefits appeal is before the Court on the Commissioner's Motion to alter or amend judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). Doc. 23. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to Defendant's motion. Doc. 24. The undersigned has considered all of the foregoing, and the motion is now ripe for review.

I.

Relief under Rule 59(e) is an "extraordinary remedy" reserved for exceptional cases. Stojetz v. Ishee , No. 2:04-cv-263, 2015 WL 196029, at *1, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4343, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 13, 2015) ; Foster v. DeLuca , 545 F.3d 582, 584 (7th Cir. 2008). Rule 59(e) does not permit parties to effectively "re-argue a case." Howard v. United States , 533 F.3d 472, 475 (6th Cir. 2008). Rather, the purpose of Rule 59(e) is "to allow the district court to correct its own errors, sparing the parties and appellate courts the burden of unnecessary appellate proceedings." Id. There are only four circumstances that warrant such relief: "if there is a clear error of law, newly discovered evidence, an intervening change in controlling law, or to prevent manifest injustice." GenCorp, Inc. v. Am. Int'l Underwriters , 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir. 1999) (internal citations omitted).

II.

Defendant argues that this extraordinary remedy is warranted because the Court committed a "clear error of law" in remanding Plaintiff's Social Security benefits appeal for an immediate award of benefits. Doc. 23 at PageID 2949. The Commissioner requests the Court amend its judgment to instead remand Plaintiff's claim for additional proceedings. Id. In its Decision and Entry issued August 27, 2019, the Court discussed, inter alia , the opinions written by Plaintiff's treating physician, Joseph DiCicco, M.D., and the state agency examining physician. Doc. 21 at PageID 2945-46. The Court ultimately found overwhelming evidence of Plaintiff's disability, and thus remanded her claim for an immediate award of benefits. Id. Upon review, the undersigned finds no "clear legal error" warranting Rule 59(e) relief.

The Commissioner first contends that Dr. DiCicco's opinion cannot support a finding of disability because Plaintiff began substantial gainful activity less than twelve months after the opinion was issued. Doc. 23 at PageID 2950. This argument relies on the fallacy that Plaintiff's disability began on the same day Dr. DiCicco issued his opinion and overlooks that Dr. DiCicco's treatment records and Plaintiff's symptoms pre-date the issuance of his opinion. Doc. 7 at PageID 1445-1522. The Commissioner's argument, in this regard, lacks merit.

Second, the Commissioner asserts that the Court erred in granting an immediate award of benefits because additional fact finding is needed to clarify discrepancies in Plaintiff's medical record regarding her post-surgery improvement. Doc. 23 at PageID 2952. Specifically, the Commissioner places great weight on Plaintiff's ability to walk in a charity walk after her surgery. Id. Evidence that Plaintiff participated in a charity walk and suffered symptoms afterwards, however, does not negate the objective evidence laid out by this Court that supports disability. Doc. 21 at PageID 2944-45. As explained in this Court's remand order, Plaintiff had an "antalgic gait"; "grade 3 and grade 4 changes in both the patellofemoral and medical compartments"; and "severe crepitance with knee extension over patella." Id. It also does not significantly undermine the objective medical findings regarding Plaintiff's other impairments, which this Court specifically detailed. Id. at PageID 2945. The undersigned is thus also unconvinced by Defendant's second contention for Rule 59(e) relief.

In sum, Defendant's motion for relief under Rule 59(e) boils down to a disagreement with the Court's interpretation of the facts in this case, rather than a demonstration of a "clear legal error." The law is clear that the Court has the...