Case ID: f-appx_571/html/0583-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CHA YANG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 13-15825.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Dec. 9, 2013.
    
    Filed April 28, 2014.
    Sengthiene Bosavanh, Esquire Law Offices of Jeffrey Milam, Modesto, CA, Ralph Wilborn, Esquire, Ralph Wilborn & Etta L. Wilborn, P.C., Sahuarita, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Jeffrey James Lodge, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, Timothy R. Bolin, Special Assistant U.S., Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: THOMAS, FISHER and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Cha Yang appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). We affirm.

The government’s litigating position was the same as the ALJ’s decision, so the district court did not err by failing to separately analyze the position of the ALJ.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the ALJ’s decision, though in error, was substantially justified. See Meier v. Colvin, 727 F.3d 867, 869-70 (9th Cir.2013). The panel was divided as to whether Dr. Mouanoutoua’s evaluation should have been discounted based on evidence of malingering or other “clear and convincing” reasons for finding Yang not credible. See Cha Yang v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 488 Fed.Appx. 203 (9th Cir.2012). The majority held that the ALJ’s malingering finding was not supported by substantial evidence and that the ALJ’s other reasons for discounting Yang’s credibility, although “potentially legitimate,” were not articulated with sufficient specificity to allow for meaningful judicial review. Id. at 205-06; see Benton ex rel. Benton v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 1030, 1040-41 (9th Cir.2003). We therefore remanded for “further findings evaluating the credibility of Yang’s complaints.” Yang, 488 Fed.Appx. at 206. The district court carefully reviewed this record, and appropriately weighed the disagreement among the panel members, in determining that the government’s position was substantially justified. See Meier, 727 F.3d at 873; Gonzales v. Free Speech Coal., 408 F.3d 613, 619 (9th Cir. 2005).

Each side shall bear its own costs on appeal.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.