Tilley v. Berryhill
2:18-cv-00471
| D. Nev. | Apr 30, 2020Background:
- Tilley challenged the Social Security Administration's denial of disability benefits; the district court reversed and remanded on January 27, 2020.
- The Commissioner timely moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment, arguing remand was unnecessary.
- The ALJ had relied on vocational expert (VE) testimony identifying three jobs, including garment sorter (~50,000 national jobs), to find Tilley not disabled at step five.
- Tilley conceded the garment sorter exists in significant numbers but argued she cannot perform it due to a conflict with the DOT and also disputed the mail clerk job.
- The Commissioner argued any error about the other two jobs was harmless because the garment sorter alone supports a non-disability finding.
- The court granted the Commissioner’s Rule 59(e) motion, vacated its prior remand order and judgment, affirmed the ALJ’s non-disability decision, and denied Tilley’s motion for reversal/remand.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 59(e) amendment is warranted to undo the court's remand | Remand was proper because DOT/VE conflicts and inability to perform other jobs required further development | Remand was manifest error because the garment sorter job alone supports non-disability | Granted: court amended judgment; remand vacated because garment sorter supports ALJ's finding |
| Whether VE testimony conflicts with DOT for garment sorter such that Tilley cannot perform it | Tilley asserted a conflict between VE testimony and DOT description making the job unperformable for her | Commissioner maintained Tilley did not show she cannot perform garment sorter; VE testimony stands | Held: court found no reversible error; Tilley did not overcome VE testimony as to garment sorter |
| Whether remand needed to address ALJ's consideration of medical opinions and subjective testimony | Tilley asked for remand to revisit these issues if court accepted Commissioner’s arguments | Commissioner said no remand necessary because RFC/hypothetical incorporated limitations and garment sorter supports non-disability | Held: No remand needed; ALJ’s RFC and consideration of opinions/testimony were sufficient because VE hypothetical included limitations |
Key Cases Cited
- Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2003) (Rule 59(e) is an extraordinary remedy used sparingly)
- McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 1999) (district court has broad discretion on Rule 59(e) grounds)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2011) (enumerating grounds to grant Rule 59(e))
- Yelovich v. Colvin, [citation="532 F. App'x 700"] (9th Cir. 2013) (one occupation with tens of thousands of jobs can support non-disability)
- Lara v. Astrue, [citation="305 F. App'x 324"] (9th Cir. 2008) (harmless error if remaining jobs that claimant can perform are sufficient to support ALJ decision)