Jolie A. Russo United States Magistrate Judge
OPINION AND ORDER ON DEFNDANT'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT
Jolie A. Russo United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff Curtis P. (“Plaintiff”) brought this action for judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's (“Commissioner”) final decision denying his applications for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act (“the Act”). In an Opinion and Order dated June 1, 2021 (ECF 24), the Court reversed the Commissioner's decision and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings. A Judgment was also filed on June 1, 2021 (ECF 25). The Commissioner now moves to alter or amend the Judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59. For the reasons stated, the Commissioner's motion is granted.
BACKGROUND
In its Opinion and Order, the Court reversed and remanded the Commissioner's final decision for further proceedings. The Court's decision was based on a single issue, the ALJ's reliance on the eight-year-old testimony of a Vocational Expert (VE). The Court reasoned that while a qualified VE's testimony is ordinarily sufficient by itself to support an ALJ's step-five finding, Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1159 (9th Cir. 2020), the ALJ's decision relied on VE testimony that was based upon available jobs in 2011. Because the ALJ's non-disability determination was rendered in 2019, the Court noted it was unclear whether the 2011 VE testimony was sufficient to support the ALJ's step-five finding. English v. Shalala, 10 F.3d 1080, 1084-86 (4th Cir. 1993). The Commissioner now moves to alter or amend the Court's Judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) to address whether the Court committed clear error by failing to affirm the ALJ's decision.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
“A district court has considerable discretion when considering a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e).” Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003). Absent highly unusual circumstances, relief under Rule 59(e) is only appropriate where (1) the moving party presents newly discovered evidence to the court, (2) the court committed clear error, (3) to prevent manifest injustice, or (4) there is an intervening change in controlling law. McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999). “Clear error occurs when ‘the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.'” Smith v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2013). To be clearly erroneous, a district court's determination must “strike [the court] as wrong with the force of a five-week-old, unrefrigerated dead fish.” Ocean Garden, Inc. v. Marktrade Co., Inc., 953 F.2d 500, 502 (9th Cir. 2001).
DISCUSSION
The sole issue here is whether the Court clearly erred by reversing and remanding the Commissioner's final decision. McDowell 197 F.3d at 1255. The Court reversed and remanded the Commissioner's decision denying plaintiff's application for benefits because the ALJ's 2019 nondisability determination was based upon VE testimony regarding job numbers rendered eight years prior, in 2011. The Court reasoned it was unclear whether the 2011 VE testimony regarding numbers of jobs that existed in the national economy constituted substantial evidence supporting the ALJ's 2019 nondisability determination. This was error. The applicable standard of review requires the Court to affirm the Commissioner's decision where the ALJ's decision was rational. Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 1995). Here, although it was reasonable to doubt whether the VE's assessment of the number of jobs existing in 2011 accurately reflected the number of available jobs in 2019, there had been no intervening change in the DOT which the VE relied upon, thus distinguishing this case from English, 10 F.3d at 1084-86. Barring a change in the DOT or other unusual circumstance, a qualified VE's testimony is sufficient to support an ALJ's step five finding. Ford, 950 F.3d at 1159. The VE testimony from 2011 therefore constituted substantial evidence, and the ALJ did not err by relying on the VE testimony. Because the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence, the Court committed clear error and the Commissioner's motion is granted. McDowell 197 F.3d at 1255. The June 1, 2021 Judgment is vacated and the ALJ's decision is affirmed.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Commissioner's motion under Rule 59(e) (ECF. 26) is GRANTED. The Judgment of June 1, 2021 is vacated and the Commissioner's decision is affirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.