Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Joseph Gonzalez sought review of an administrative law judge’s June 14, 2018 decision denying his claims for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act and Supplemental Security Income benefits under Title XVI. In an earlier order dated July 1, 2020, the court denied the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, granted Gonzalez’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and remanded the matter for a rehearing. Judgment was entered and the case was remanded on July 2, 2020.

The earlier remand rested on the merits of Gonzalez’s disability claim. The court found that the administrative law judge committed an error of law and that the residual functional capacity determination—the finding about what work-related activities Gonzalez could still perform—was not supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, the administrative law judge gave great weight to consulting psychologist Dr. Phillips’s opinion but did not explain why he rejected Dr. Phillips’s marked limitation concerning Gonzalez’s ability to handle stress appropriately. The court also found that the hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert did not adequately account for Gonzalez’s stress-related limitations.

The earlier order did not decide the merits of Gonzalez’s challenge under the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. Gonzalez had argued that the administrative law judge was unconstitutionally appointed and should not continue deciding his claim. The Commissioner had not addressed Gonzalez’s request to have the matter assigned to a different administrative law judge.

The Commissioner’s Motion

The Commissioner moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3 to alter or amend the judgment, vacate the remand, and obtain judgment on the pleadings. The Commissioner argued that the court had overlooked regulations and case law permitting administrative law judges to rely on licensed psychologists in assessing residual functional capacity.

The Commissioner focused on the definition of an acceptable medical source and argued that a regulation in effect through March 26, 2017 did not apply to the administrative law judge’s June 14, 2018 decision. The Commissioner argued that a later regulation, effective March 27, 2017, applied instead and recognized licensed psychologists as acceptable medical sources. The Commissioner also relied on other regulations and decisions concerning the use of psychologists’ opinions in Social Security disability evaluations.

Gonzalez supported part of the Commissioner’s interpretation of the regulations but opposed changing the judgment. He maintained that the administrative law judge still failed to reconcile Dr. Phillips’s marked stress limitation with the residual functional capacity finding and failed to include the limitation adequately in the vocational expert’s hypothetical. Gonzalez argued that the case should be remanded for further proceedings addressing the stress limitation, and he separately asked the court to address his Appointments Clause argument and remand the matter to a different administrative law judge.

Legal Standard

A Rule 59(e) motion allows a court to alter or amend a judgment, but the standard is strict. Reconsideration generally is not available to relitigate old issues, present new theories, or obtain a second opportunity to argue the case. The moving party generally must identify controlling decisions or information that the court overlooked.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that the Commissioner did not identify any overlooked matter or controlling decision. Although the Commissioner argued that the court had applied the wrong Title II regulation, the Commissioner did not provide binding authority showing that the regulation applied by the court did not govern Gonzalez’s Title II claim, or that the later regulation should apply instead.

The court also noted that it had been aware of both the regulation’s March 26, 2017 expiration date and the June 14, 2018 date of the administrative law judge’s decision. The Commissioner’s disagreement with the court’s interpretation and application of the regulation was not a proper basis for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3. The motion addressed Gonzalez’s Title II claim and did not present arguments concerning the Title XVI claim.

Disposition

Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox denied the Commissioner’s motion to alter or amend the judgment. The opinion did not change the earlier order denying the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, granting Gonzalez’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and remanding the matter for rehearing.